lexinnova in the news - coroflots3images.coroflot.com/user_files/individual_files/... · connecting...

LexInnova in The News

LexInnova

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TIMES

Quartz

Qualcomm Blog

Bloomberg BNA

Relativity

IPWatchdog

ZDnet

TELECOM TV

Inside Counsel

ContentsSr. no.

Publication Article/News Report Featured Insight by/From

Page no.

1 Qualcomm Leads Industry in IoT Patents

IOT Report 6

2 Qualcomm has the most valuable IoT patentportfolio

IOT Report 7

3 One company has a big edge in the ght to dominate theInternet of Things

Rana Pratap(Principal Consultant –

Technology)

9

4 TiVo – Rovi Merger: Bolting for Business

Rahul Vijh (Director – Client Solutions)

10

5 5G will be compromised if the same old IPR models prevail

5G Network Technology

12

6 Autonomous Cars – Patents and Perspectives

Rahul Vijh (Director – Client Solutions)

13

7 If you thought patents got ugly with LTE, just waituntil 5G

5G Network TechnologyReport

15

8 How Australia can cash in on the cyber boom

Network SecurityReport

17

9 5G Mobile Networks: The Next Big Battleground

l Rana J Pratap (Principal Consultant – Technology)

l Rahul Vijh (Director – Client Solutions)

19

10 Who is the king of wearable technology? The truthwas actually ...


Technology)

21

11 Microsoft is leading the wearable market…in patent applications

Rana J Pratap(Principal Consultant – Technology)

23

12 Microsoft, Not Apple Or Alphabet, Is Wearables King… In Patents

Rana J Pratap(Principal Consultant – Technology)

24

Sr. no.


Page no.

13 Perspective: Everything is Hackable

Mark Kerzner(Chief Product Architect)

26

14 Apple Patent Trolls Like VirnetX May Target Wearables Next

l Rahul Vijh (Director – Client Solutions)

l Rana J Pratap (Principal Consultant – Technology)

29

15 How to Kick Privileged Information Out of Your Production Set

Kaushal Jha (Manager – Litigation Solution)

31

16 Litigation Service Providers Share Their e-Discovery Resolutions

Nasir Ali(Manager – Litigation Solution)

33

17 Why Lawyers Should Care About Big Data


34

18 Technological change may be a predator for privilege claims in litigation

Kaushal Jha(Manager – Litigation Solution)

37

19 5 Tips to Eectively Manage Privilege in E-Discovery

Nasir Ali(Manager – Litigation Solution)

39

20 Text Analytics, Big Data and Law Mark Kerzner(Chief Product Architect)

41

21 8 tips for managing outsourced projects

Kapil Bagai(Manager Litigation Solution)

44

21 eDiscovery and the Internet of Things


46

23 Internet Of Things: IoT TechLandscape and Rankings - NewReport

Abhi verma(Founder andManaging Director)

48

24 Qualcomm is rst to announcewireless charging for metalsmartphones and more

Wireless PowerReport

50

Continued

Sr. no.


Page no.

25 mrc 5 hurdles to Hadoop adoption(and how to fix them)


51

26 Social media: Transforming BigData to Bigger Data, and BiggerDiscovery Challenges

Vijayta Sharma(Manager – LitigationSolution)

53

27 Cisco tops list of security-relatedpatents


54

28 US dominates net-securitypatents, China, Canada and Oz on the advance


55

29 Australia is world’s fourth-largest holder of networksecurity patents, analysis finds


56

30 Mitigating Risks in TechnologyLitigation

Kaushal Jha(Manager – LitigationSolution)

57

31 Cisco holds broadest networksecurity patent portfolio, but loses in quality


59

32 Start Me Up! (Part 1): IndianStartup Scene in Silicon Valley

Abhi Verma(Founder andManaging Director)

60

33 Avago/Broadcom Create PatentPowerhouse


Technology)

62

34 Samsung, Qualcomm lead thecharge in wireless power patentactivities

Rana Pratap(Principal Consultant –Technology)

64

35 Xiaomi, China’s New Phone Giant, Takes Aim at World

Aditya Awasthi(Director - Client Services)

65

36 Why Altera’s Acquisition is atimely move by Intel


66

Continued

Sr. no.


Page no.

37 The Chinese want to challengeApple on its home turf


68

38 Sony leads virtual reality patentrace


69

39 Who’s Winning the SSD Race? Ask the Patents


70

40 EMC Extends Flash with XtremIOUpgrade


72

41 Sony, Microsoft, Samsung Lead in Virtual-Reality Patents

Virtual RealityReport

73

42 Nokia Alcatel-Lucent deal wouldmake a complementary patentportfolio

Aditya Awasthi(Director – ClientServices)

74

43 Nokia Alcatel-Lucent deal wouldmake a complementary patentportfolio


75

44 Nokia Slips: An Alcatel Buy Makes Sense, What are the Synergies? Asks Street

LexInnovaResearch Team

76

45 For Google’s Nest, Future Still UpIn Air

Nasir Ali(Manager – LitigationSolution)

78

46 Why Xiaomi Is Not Coming ToAmerica Anytime Soon: It OnlyHas 2 US Patents


79

47 Patent Filings Reveal a GrowingInterest in IoT

IoT Report 80

Continued

by Megan Crouse May 26, 2016

Qualcomm Leads Industry in IoT Patents

Qualcomm is the most proli�c company when it comes to IoT inventions, holding a record number of patents for the Internet of Things, according to a report from LexInnova via Business Insider.

The telecommunications giant holds 724 patents related to the Internet of Things, including 157 that have been marked as high-value. These high-value patents are ones which are likely to be involved in litigation, de�ned as such because devices which aren’t considered to be useful are less likely to be copied. They’re followed by Intel, with 688. In comparison, Intel has fewer patents on the high end of LexInnova’s patent strength scale, which measures strength by patent quality and lifespan.

Microsoft sits at an interesting mid-point on the scale, with high patent strength but only an average patent lifespan.

Qualcomm’s IoT patents are typically being leveraged in chipsets, including those used to communicate with connected medical devices. The majority of Qualcomm’s chipset sales are in smartphones, but with the global smartphone industry slowing down, the company may consider it advantageous to expand its already $1 billion IoT segment.

LexInnova predicts that control systems and transportation are particularly in demand when it comes to IoT, both of which contribute to the connected car market. These areas are those in which a large number of patents have been licensed.

Business Insider has further conducted their own study on the IoT, predicting that the number of devices connected to the Internet will grow to 34 billion by 2020, tripling the 10 billion currently in use globally.

Featured (Report): IOT

–(6)–

Story By: Megan Crouse

by BI Intelligence May 25, 2016

contd.

Qualcomm has the most valuable IoT patent portfolio

Qualcomm holds the most IoT-related patents right now, and those patents have a very high value, according to a new study by LexInnova, which provides research and consulting on patent law.

The study found that Qualcomm holds 724 IoT-related patents, just ahead of Intel’s 688.Chinese networking provider ZTE, which came in third place, only has 351 IoT patents.

However, Qualcomm has 157 high-value patents related to IoT technologies, far more than any other company, according to LexInnova’s analysis. LG had the second most high-value patents, with 63, followed by Microsoft’s 50. LexInnova judges the value of di�erent patents based on how likely they are to be litigated at some point, since patents that aren’t very valuable will likely never be infringed on.

For IoT-related patents, those that pertain to collecting and transmitting data from IoT devices are the most valuable, according to LexInnova’s analysis. Qualcomm holds a number of patents in this area for collecting and transmitting data from connected medical devices and other IoT device categories. The technologies that Qualcomm has patented in this area are used in its chipsets for connecting IoT devices to the internet over di�erent types of networks.

Qualcomm's business is still heavily reliant on its chipset sales for smartphones. However,

global smartphone sales are slowing, and Qualcomm can diversify its chip business by building up its IoT business, which made more than $1 billion in revenues last year, the company reported. For right now, technology suppliers including Qualcomm and Intel are working together to further develop IoT technologies like interoperability standards because the sector is so nascent. Once the IoT market is more mature, we may see more litigation between these companies over their respective patents.

That maturity is coming as the IoT revolution picks up speed and when it does, it will change how we live, work, travel, entertain, and more.

From connected homes and connected cars to smart buildings and transportation, every aspect of our lives will be a�ected by the increasing ability

of consumers, businesses, and governments to connect to and control everything around them.

Imagine “smart mirrors” that allow you to digitally try on clothes. Assembly line sensors that can detect even the smallest decrease in e�ciency and determine when crucial equipment needs to be repaired or replaced. GPS-guided agricultural equipment that can plant, fertilize, and harvest crops. Fitness trackers that allow users to transmit data to their doctors.

It’s not science �ction. This “next Industrial Revolution” is happening as we speak. It’s so big that it could mean new revenue streams for your company and new opportunities for you. The only question is: Are you fully up to speed on the IoT?

After months of researching and reporting this exploding trend, John Greenough and Jonathan Camhi of BI Intelligence, Business

Insider's premium research service, have put together an essential report on the IoT that explains the exciting present and the fascinating future of the Internet of Things. It covers how the IoT is being implemented today, where the new sources of opportunity will be tomorrow and how 16 separate sectors of the economy will be transformed over the next 20 years.

The report gives a thorough outlook on the future of the Internet of Things, including the following big picture insights:

IoT devices connected to the Internet will more than triple by 2020, from 10 billion to 34 billion. IoT devices will account for 24 billion, while traditional computing devices (e.g. smartphones, tablets, smartwatches, etc.) will comprise 10 billion.

Nearly $6 trillion will be spent on IoT solutions over the next �ve years.

Businesses will be the top adopter of IoT solutions because they will use IoT to 1) lower operating costs; 2) increase productivity; and 3) expand to new markets or develop new product o�erings.

Governments will be the second-largest adopters, while consumers will be the group least transformed by the IoT.

And when you dig deep into the report, you’ll get the whole story in a clear, no-nonsense presentation:

The complex infrastructure of the Internet of Things distilled into a single ecosystem

The most comprehensive breakdown of the bene�ts and drawbacks of mesh (e.g. ZigBee, Z-Wave, etc.), cellular (e.g. 3G/4G, Sigfox, etc.), and internet (e.g. Wi-Fi, Ethernet, etc.) networks

The important role analytics systems, including edge analytics, cloud analytics, will play in making the most of IoT investments

The sizable security challenges presented by the IoT and how they can be overcome

The four powerful forces driving IoT innovation, plus the four di�cult market barriers to IoT adoption

Complete analysis of the likely future investment in the critical IoT infrastructure: connectivity, security, data storage, system integration, device hardware, and application development

In-depth analysis of how the IoT ecosystem will change and disrupt 16 di�erent industries

–(7)–


by BI Intelligence May 25, 2016

Qualcomm holds the most IoT-related patents right now, and those patents have a very high value, according to a new study by LexInnova, which provides research and consulting on patent law.

The study found that Qualcomm holds 724 IoT-related patents, just ahead of Intel’s 688.Chinese networking provider ZTE, which came in third place, only has 351 IoT patents.

However, Qualcomm has 157 high-value patents related to IoT technologies, far more than any other company, according to LexInnova’s analysis. LG had the second most high-value patents, with 63, followed by Microsoft’s 50. LexInnova judges the value of di�erent patents based on how likely they are to be litigated at some point, since patents that aren’t very valuable will likely never be infringed on.

For IoT-related patents, those that pertain to collecting and transmitting data from IoT devices are the most valuable, according to LexInnova’s analysis. Qualcomm holds a number of patents in this area for collecting and transmitting data from connected medical devices and other IoT device categories. The technologies that Qualcomm has patented in this area are used in its chipsets for connecting IoT devices to the internet over di�erent types of networks.

Qualcomm's business is still heavily reliant on its chipset sales for smartphones. However,

global smartphone sales are slowing, and Qualcomm can diversify its chip business by building up its IoT business, which made more than $1 billion in revenues last year, the company reported. For right now, technology suppliers including Qualcomm and Intel are working together to further develop IoT technologies like interoperability standards because the sector is so nascent. Once the IoT market is more mature, we may see more litigation between these companies over their respective patents.

That maturity is coming as the IoT revolution picks up speed and when it does, it will change how we live, work, travel, entertain, and more.

From connected homes and connected cars to smart buildings and transportation, every aspect of our lives will be a�ected by the increasing ability

of consumers, businesses, and governments to connect to and control everything around them.

Imagine “smart mirrors” that allow you to digitally try on clothes. Assembly line sensors that can detect even the smallest decrease in e�ciency and determine when crucial equipment needs to be repaired or replaced. GPS-guided agricultural equipment that can plant, fertilize, and harvest crops. Fitness trackers that allow users to transmit data to their doctors.

It’s not science �ction. This “next Industrial Revolution” is happening as we speak. It’s so big that it could mean new revenue streams for your company and new opportunities for you. The only question is: Are you fully up to speed on the IoT?

After months of researching and reporting this exploding trend, John Greenough and Jonathan Camhi of BI Intelligence, Business

Insider's premium research service, have put together an essential report on the IoT that explains the exciting present and the fascinating future of the Internet of Things. It covers how the IoT is being implemented today, where the new sources of opportunity will be tomorrow and how 16 separate sectors of the economy will be transformed over the next 20 years.

The report gives a thorough outlook on the future of the Internet of Things, including the following big picture insights:

IoT devices connected to the Internet will more than triple by 2020, from 10 billion to 34 billion. IoT devices will account for 24 billion, while traditional computing devices (e.g. smartphones, tablets, smartwatches, etc.) will comprise 10 billion.

Nearly $6 trillion will be spent on IoT solutions over the next �ve years.

Businesses will be the top adopter of IoT solutions because they will use IoT to 1) lower operating costs; 2) increase productivity; and 3) expand to new markets or develop new product o�erings.

Governments will be the second-largest adopters, while consumers will be the group least transformed by the IoT.

And when you dig deep into the report, you’ll get the whole story in a clear, no-nonsense presentation:

The complex infrastructure of the Internet of Things distilled into a single ecosystem

The most comprehensive breakdown of the bene�ts and drawbacks of mesh (e.g. ZigBee, Z-Wave, etc.), cellular (e.g. 3G/4G, Sigfox, etc.), and internet (e.g. Wi-Fi, Ethernet, etc.) networks

The important role analytics systems, including edge analytics, cloud analytics, will play in making the most of IoT investments

The sizable security challenges presented by the IoT and how they can be overcome

The four powerful forces driving IoT innovation, plus the four di�cult market barriers to IoT adoption

Complete analysis of the likely future investment in the critical IoT infrastructure: connectivity, security, data storage, system integration, device hardware, and application development

In-depth analysis of how the IoT ecosystem will change and disrupt 16 di�erent industries

–(8)–


Story By: BI Intelligence

by Joon Ian Wong 23 May, 2016

One company has a big edge in the �ght to dominate the Internet of Things

Most of the innovation on the so-called Internet of Things is locked up in patents held by the companies that make the innards of sensors, routers, and other devices, according to a study by LexInnova, a consultancy.

The study finds that the companies with the greatest number of IoT patents globally are the chip-makers Qualcomm and Intel, followed by Chinese network-gear maker ZTE. Here’s the breakdown:

But not all patents are created equal. Only 1.5% of all patents are litigated, according to a seminal 2000 paper on the subject by Mark Lemley, a law professor at Stanford. That suggests only a sliver of patents are worth the cost of enforcing. Lemley and three other co-authors devised a system to sift through patents and find the most valuable ones.

LexInnova applied this system to the IoT patents to show which companies had the strongest portfolio:

Where Qualcomm and Intel are neck and neck on absolute numbers of patents, Qualcomm has a significantly stronger patent portfolio, according to LexInnova’s research. This might be a major problem for Intel, which has staked its future on IoT. Brian Krzanich, its chief executive, called the company’s IoT group a “primary growth engine” in his 2015 shareholder’s letter. It reported revenue of $651 million for its IoT group for the first quarter of 2016, 22% higher than the previous year. Qualcomm doesn’t report numbers for its IoT products, although it said last year that it made $1 billion in revenue from chips used in smart homes, city infrastructure, cars, and wearables.

In the meantime, however, it looks like both Intel and Qualcomm are content to grow the IoT pie. As chip-makers, they both benefit from a proliferation of new devices, and as smartphone growth slows, even Qualcomm’s dominance in the mobile sector doesn’t guarantee future growth.

That’s why they joined forces, together with Microsoft, on a new standards group in February to ensure that all those connected cars, watches, thermostats, and fridges actually end up working together. Those war-chests of patents will come into play later, when the low hanging-fruit from the Internet of Things has been harvested.

Story By: Joon Ian Wong

Featured (Author): Rana J Pratap (Principal Consultant – Technology)

–(9)–

by Rahul Vijh 5 May, 2016

TiVo – Rovi Merger: Bolting for BusinessLast week Rovi Corporation formally announced it was acquiring TiVo for $1.1 billion, confirming anticipations set alight by the New York Times when it reported the two companies are in close acquisition talks.

Prior to the announcement last week, both companies had maintained a “no comments” stance feeding into general doubt among industry experts. Indeed, TiVo had previously rejected interests from bigger players such as Google, Microsoft and Apple, and by all means it risked endangering its hardware unit. An acquisition by Rovi at this juncture sounded counter-intuitive to most.

Yet, the acquisition did come to pass – and in short hindsight it appears to be well placed strategically. There is precedent of course to Rovi acquiring a company focused on its hardware business. In November 2014, Rovi acquired FanTv (Then Fanhattan) after the company struggled to sell set-top boxes despite a lucrative deal with Time Warner. Although Rovi executives seemed committed to FanTv’s hardware at the time, this stance changed soon after, with Rovi CEO Peter Halt publicly saying “We are not in, and don’t want to be in, a business that’s dependent upon any relationship with the hardware provider.” Shortly after, Rovi sold FanTv’s guides to TV operators all over the world and has since then bolstered the software team. According to market analysts and users of TiVo alike, this is the expected trajectory for TiVo as well.

After fighting to maintain its brand identity all these years, why is TiVo really agreeing to a deal right now?

A look at the performance of TiVo over the past few years and the company’s current situation reveals a few answers. Being squeezed by cable companies who provide consumers with their own DVRs as part of a bundle, and furthermore by companies like Netflix who let users directly stream their content; thereby avoiding the cable

industry altogether, TiVo is currently going through a very uncertain phase. The graph below shows Netflix’s meteoric growth rate over the past few years. Note that the latest TiVo Bolt can record from online streaming sites like Netflix or even YouTube for offline viewing, and comes with a storage space of up to 1Tb. But with greater availability of high speed internet and greater availability of content-on-demand services, the recording feature of the TiVO Bolt continues to have diminished utility for the average customer.

TiVo’s 99 problems don’t end with just cutthroat competition. Their prized US6233389 patent relating to a “Multimedia Time warping system” for allowing users to replay, speed up or slow down recorded video, though

highly successful and widely licensed expires in 2018, along with various other key patents. According to reports, TiVo would see a significant decline in licensing royalties in 2019 and might become completely unprofitable unless they bring in new innovation or partnerships. TiVo has not tried out its more recent patents in a court of law and thus their potential value cannot be gauged.

TiVo’s long time CEO Tom Rogers quit in January 2016 and TiVo has been without a CEO ever since. The stock price decreased to a little over $7.50 in mid-march this year; down from over $11.50 around the same time last year. Things really haven’t been looking very bright for TiVo and an acquisition really did seem like the best course.

So, what’s in it for Rovi?

Rovi will be looking to add about 1100 patents that TiVo currently owns and strengthen its portfolio of over 10,000. Rovi generates over 27% of its income by licensing it’s IP to prominent cable TV providers. A great chunk of Rovi’s

income also comes from litigating against other players infringing on its patents. Though, the last couple of years have been rough for plaintiffs and Rovi was no exception. A patent infringement case against Netflix saw 5

of Rovi’s patents get invalidated.

TiVo has been very active in filling patents on data acquisition and data processing; which would come in handy for Rovi’s media guides to improve on. The average strength of TiVo’s patents in certain domains like recommendations and filtering relevant results could be directly applicable to OTT providers. TiVo also has strong patents in security, data processing and which will be valuable to Rovi in pursuing licensing deals with Amazon, Hulu and Netflix.

TiVo’s Bolt is sleek looking product and has received generally positive reviews from users. The Bolt could also possibly fit into Rovi’s strategy by licensing out the product altogether and let other DVR manufacturers help improve their products.

Yet another advantage of merging with TiVo is that it directly gains access to TiVo’s 10 million subscribers (in addition to Rovi’s own 18 million) where they can incorporate their revamped media guides.

Overall, we can infer from the graphs that Tivo has patents filed in the same domains as Rovi, and by going ahead with the merger Rovi not only eliminates a competitor but also emerges stronger as it will have a 70% stake in the new entity plus have more innovation in its war chest.

Whether Rovi uses that war chest to attack competition (which becomes harder or easier as the anti-software patent pendulum continues to swing), or to further refine the Bolt and Rovi’s own media guides or both – the acquisition does spell positive for both companies and their stakeholders.

contd.

Featured (Author): Rahul Vijh (Director - Client Solutions)

–(10)–

by Rahul Vijh 5 May, 2016

Last week Rovi Corporation formally announced it was acquiring TiVo for $1.1 billion, confirming anticipations set alight by the New York Times when it reported the two companies are in close acquisition talks.

Prior to the announcement last week, both companies had maintained a “no comments” stance feeding into general doubt among industry experts. Indeed, TiVo had previously rejected interests from bigger players such as Google, Microsoft and Apple, and by all means it risked endangering its hardware unit. An acquisition by Rovi at this juncture sounded counter-intuitive to most.

Yet, the acquisition did come to pass – and in short hindsight it appears to be well placed strategically. There is precedent of course to Rovi acquiring a company focused on its hardware business. In November 2014, Rovi acquired FanTv (Then Fanhattan) after the company struggled to sell set-top boxes despite a lucrative deal with Time Warner. Although Rovi executives seemed committed to FanTv’s hardware at the time, this stance changed soon after, with Rovi CEO Peter Halt publicly saying “We are not in, and don’t want to be in, a business that’s dependent upon any relationship with the hardware provider.” Shortly after, Rovi sold FanTv’s guides to TV operators all over the world and has since then bolstered the software team. According to market analysts and users of TiVo alike, this is the expected trajectory for TiVo as well.

After fighting to maintain its brand identity all these years, why is TiVo really agreeing to a deal right now?

A look at the performance of TiVo over the past few years and the company’s current situation reveals a few answers. Being squeezed by cable companies who provide consumers with their own DVRs as part of a bundle, and furthermore by companies like Netflix who let users directly stream their content; thereby avoiding the cable

industry altogether, TiVo is currently going through a very uncertain phase. The graph below shows Netflix’s meteoric growth rate over the past few years. Note that the latest TiVo Bolt can record from online streaming sites like Netflix or even YouTube for offline viewing, and comes with a storage space of up to 1Tb. But with greater availability of high speed internet and greater availability of content-on-demand services, the recording feature of the TiVO Bolt continues to have diminished utility for the average customer.

TiVo’s 99 problems don’t end with just cutthroat competition. Their prized US6233389 patent relating to a “Multimedia Time warping system” for allowing users to replay, speed up or slow down recorded video, though

highly successful and widely licensed expires in 2018, along with various other key patents. According to reports, TiVo would see a significant decline in licensing royalties in 2019 and might become completely unprofitable unless they bring in new innovation or partnerships. TiVo has not tried out its more recent patents in a court of law and thus their potential value cannot be gauged.

TiVo’s long time CEO Tom Rogers quit in January 2016 and TiVo has been without a CEO ever since. The stock price decreased to a little over $7.50 in mid-march this year; down from over $11.50 around the same time last year. Things really haven’t been looking very bright for TiVo and an acquisition really did seem like the best course.

So, what’s in it for Rovi?

Rovi will be looking to add about 1100 patents that TiVo currently owns and strengthen its portfolio of over 10,000. Rovi generates over 27% of its income by licensing it’s IP to prominent cable TV providers. A great chunk of Rovi’s

income also comes from litigating against other players infringing on its patents. Though, the last couple of years have been rough for plaintiffs and Rovi was no exception. A patent infringement case against Netflix saw 5

of Rovi’s patents get invalidated.

TiVo has been very active in filling patents on data acquisition and data processing; which would come in handy for Rovi’s media guides to improve on. The average strength of TiVo’s patents in certain domains like recommendations and filtering relevant results could be directly applicable to OTT providers. TiVo also has strong patents in security, data processing and which will be valuable to Rovi in pursuing licensing deals with Amazon, Hulu and Netflix.

TiVo’s Bolt is sleek looking product and has received generally positive reviews from users. The Bolt could also possibly fit into Rovi’s strategy by licensing out the product altogether and let other DVR manufacturers help improve their products.

Yet another advantage of merging with TiVo is that it directly gains access to TiVo’s 10 million subscribers (in addition to Rovi’s own 18 million) where they can incorporate their revamped media guides.

Overall, we can infer from the graphs that Tivo has patents filed in the same domains as Rovi, and by going ahead with the merger Rovi not only eliminates a competitor but also emerges stronger as it will have a 70% stake in the new entity plus have more innovation in its war chest.

Whether Rovi uses that war chest to attack competition (which becomes harder or easier as the anti-software patent pendulum continues to swing), or to further refine the Bolt and Rovi’s own media guides or both – the acquisition does spell positive for both companies and their stakeholders.


–(11)–

Story By: Rahul Vijh

By Caroline Gabriel April 8, 2016

5G will be compromised if the same old IPR models prevail

When LTE was on the horizon, it was supposed to mark the dawn of a new era in the way fundamental mobile technology patents are licensed. The secretive bilateral deals between the handful of companies which had contributed most to the 2G, 3G and CDMA modem standards would be over, and the mobile industry would look more like WiFi, with new transparent licensing schemes and a reduction in the IPR cost burden on device makers.

That didn’t happen of course. The strings of lawsuits which have taken place around LTE technologies, and the endless disputes about how standards-essential patents (SEP) should be licensed fairly, have led to very little change in the companies which control the core technologies, or the way they negotiate with one another. The cost of licensing modem patents becomes an increasingly divisive issue as handset makers come under pressure to reduce prices, and therefore their bills of material (BOMs); and as the modem becomes an increasingly small part of the total IPR of a mobile device. Owners of patents on user interfaces, operating systems, screens and so on can be as litigious as the SEP giants, and there seem to be never-ending fees for companies trying to balance the exploding feature count of smartphones with their falling prices.

With 5G expected to be a very di�erent sort of platform to its predecessors – more evolutionary, more software-driven, more inclusive of a wide variety of connections and device types – the licensing status quo might be

expected to change at last. But in a report compiled by Intel’s associate general counsel Ann Armstrong, it is calculated that for a $400 handset, royalty payments exceed $120, and the ratio will get worse in 5G. The biggest ticket items are the mobile baseband and the WiFi chip, at about $50 each.

In one of the �rst analyses of the likely patent situation in 5G standards, technology law �rm LexInnova predicts that there will be even �ercer competition than before to provide SEP for 5G, since “being just a mobile component or technology service vendor o�ers limited revenue and pro�tability. IP licensing is much more pro�table.”

Yet LexInnova’s predictions of the companies which will be prominent in the IPR landscape mainly focus on the same old names – in the RAN, modulation and core network areas, it singles out Qualcomm (though with less dominance than in previous generations), Ericsson, Fujitsu, InterDigital and Nokia, all stalwarts of the 3GPP SEP game in the past. Intel and Cisco represent the newer breed of IT/IP companies starting to drive cellular R&D too, and BlackBerry and Headwater Partners are also listed.

Oddly, the Chinese vendors, which have been investing heavily in 5G R&D and in mobile patents, are not named among the projected leaders. But LexInnova picks out some important trends – that major handset makers like Apple will secure a better IPR position in order to reduce their own

royalties, because they will have more to trade; that there will be a greater role for non-practicing entities (�rms which have patents which are separate from products), such as InterDigital and, these days, Nokia; and that there will be a far greater role for Intel.

In the RAN area, the report highlights high frequency radios, above 10 GHz, and beamsteeering/beamforming as ripe areas for would-be IP giants, with the traditional players all expected to remain strong here.

For modulation schemes, there will be particular opportunities in non-orthogonal transmission schemes such as FBMC, GFDM and UFMC – traditionally Qualcomm has been the dominant patent force in this category.

The core network is more up for grabs especially with virtualization and SDN coming into play, so that specialists in techniques like access link integration, SON, inter-node coordination and context aware networks will be in a strong position. Even here, though, LexInnova mainly puts its bets on the usual suspects – Nokia, Qualcomm, Cisco, Intel and Ericsson head the list, plus non-practicing entity Headwater Partners.

–(12)–

Featured (Report): 5G Network Technology

By Rahul Vijh April 7, 2016

Autonomous Cars – Patents and Perspectives

Contd.

The recent Model 3 announcement by Tesla took the industry by storm and saw Tesla collecting a whopping $276 million in preorders in a matter of days. In focus in particular was the autopilot features on the new Tesla car – which meant that Autonomous Cars (a.k.a. driverless cars or self-driven cars) are �nally breaching the line between concept and mainstream.

We have seen autonomous cars coming for years now. Google has been testing extensively its self-driving car technology under the “Google X” project since 2012 with overwhelmingly positive results. Google’s autonomous cars have driven well over 1 million miles (equivalent to 75 years of U.S. adult driving) with 15 accidents – with only 1 accident being the car’s fault. This one accident, in February 2016, the self-driving car attempted to avoid sandbags blocking its path and struck a bus. Ironically, shortly thereafter, Google was granted a patent on detecting buses by autonomous cars (of course, the patent had been �led back in March 2014).

Fueled by Google’s example, several other car manufacturers and technology companies have also been actively developing the technology and trying to commercialize the concept. Apple, Baidu, Toyota, Robert Bosch and Nissan have all dedicated resources and signi�cant investments to build upon the development. General Motors’ $500 million investment into Lyft is seen by most experts as groundwork for an autonomous ride sharing network.

Though e�orts have escalated signi�cantly in the last �ve years, autonomous cars are not a new concept. Initial research can be traced back all the way to the 1920s when Houdina Radio Control demonstrated a radio controlled car in front of the New York public. In 1939, Futurama depicted cars which could use embedded systems in and under roadways to guide themselves. Later, during the 1960s, several universities started active research on autonomous cars technology with The Ohio State University and Stanford University being pioneers, though almost all the research at the time was focused on modifying roadways to guide autonomous cars. The 1980s saw the change of focus from modifying road systems to improving cars to be autonomous irrespective of road conditions. Mercedes-Benz demonstrated a robotic van that could run in busy city streets, making autonomous technology a distinct reality, albeit not commercially

viable yet. Since then, research has progressed at considerate pace – with most car manufacturers, technology companies, more universities like Carnegie Mellon University and even DARPA, making signi�cant advances.

The world’s largest automotive supplier by sales, Robert Bosch, collaborated with the second-largest high-de�nition mapping company by sales, TomTom to ensure continuous �ow of high de�nition mapping data. TomTom’s maps are already being used in cars being tested by Bosch on highways in the U.S and Germany. Bosch will use its engineering expertise to help make TomTom’s maps more accurate and work seamlessly with data produced real time by the car using sensors. Universities have stepped up as well to collaborate with various automakers and technology companies to accelerate the research.

One of the leading research units in the �eld, Carnegie-Mellon University had announced a collaborative research lab with General Motors back in 2008. Carnegie-Mellon later also announced a collaboration with Uber on researching autonomous taxi Infrastructure for major cities. Toyota has also identi�ed the importance of universities and provided a combined funding of $50 million to MIT and Stanford. In a similar vein, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and Jaguar Land Rover have jointly invested up to €11 million into a project across 10 UK universities which will work at least in part to further research on autonomous cars.

Taking head of the imminent future, in May 2013, the National Highway Tra�c Safety Administration (NHTSA) classi�ed autonomous cars into �ve levels based on autonomous capabilities, which provides us a basic framework for pinning technological drift on a scale.

Level 0 – No Automation: Driver controls all the functions of the car. No Automation.

Level 1 – Function Speci�c Automation: One or more speci�c control systems are

automated. For example, assisted braking or stability control.

Level 2 – Combined Function Automation: At least two of the control systems are automated in unison. For Example adaptive cruise control with lane centering.

Level 3 – Limited Self Driving Automation: All the critical systems like steering, brakes and throttle are automated. The car monitors conditions to require a transition back to driver control.

Level 4: Full Self Driving Automation: All systems are fully automated requiring no human intervention.

The current decade will prove transformational for autonomous cars. Toyota’s aptly named Highway Teammate and Nissan’s Level 3 cars are expected to be launched into commercial market by 2020 – but we might see Level 4 cars entering mainstream even before that – with Google leading the way. The industry on the whole is expected to hit 10 million vehicles on the road by end of 2020 – that’s a Compound annual growth rate of 134%.

Autonomous technology is also expected to expand beyond personal vehicles to public transportation. Local governments in many metropolitan cities are aiming towards automated transit systems to de-congest their cities in an e�ective manner. The �rst buses of this kind will be introduced in Switzerland in 2016. The Chinese bus company, Yutong is running similar trials and is expected to open services to public in near future.

The graph below predicts the amount of sales by level of penetration of autonomous cars into the automotive industry. Studies such as one by VTPI.org estimates that by 2070, every car being bought will have Autonomous technology installed as a primary requirement.

As with any new emerging technology, focus also shifts to patents and patent ownership trends on that technology. Research shows that technologies such as Adaptive Cruise Control and Anti-Collision

Systems have the highest number of patents/patent applications �lings, followed by Braking Control Mechanism and Communication Systems. Media and Sonar Systems have the least number of patent �lings with only 396 and 597 patents/patent applications respectively.

The number of application �lings has constantly increased from 1995 to today – with some deceleration in 2009 due to the economic recession of 2008-09 when a majority of the automobile makers saw cash �ows dwindle. The graph shows a dip after 2013 as many of the applications �led haven’t been published yet but we can assume that the number of �lings in 2015 will cross the 2500 mark and the positive growth in this technology would continue.

Looking at total patent ownership, as shown in the image below, Toyota, Robert Bosch and Nissan have the most patents relevant to autonomous cars with 3110, 2665, and 1169 patents and applications respectively. Volkswagen-Porsche (1140) has strong a portfolio in signaling and collision responsive systems while Daimler (961) has a strong portfolio in Collision Responsive Systems, Collision Detection and Pedestrian Safety Systems. Mitsubishi (231) has so far concentrated on signaling and Vehicle Steering Systems, while Panasonic (220) has patents on Vehicle Steering and Passenger Safety Systems.

The list of top 20 assignees is dominated by automobile manufacturers like Toyota, Nissan, and Volkswagen. Automobile suppliers like Robert Bosch, Valeo SA and Mando Corporation also have a signi�cant number of patents in the areas of signaling and steering systems.

Alphabet (Google) which has been spearheading autonomous cars holds 238 patents/patent applications, majority of which are in V2V and V2I communications hinting that Google will rely on the same “leading from behind” approach with autonomous cars that it followed with Android OS for the smartphone industry. Tesla is also expected to play an important role in this space, but in terms of patents owned already, does not �gure in this top 20 list.

Despite the small portfolio size, Tesla oft shares spotlight with Google – and has announced that the new Model 3 cars shipping in 2017 will be able to run in ‘Autopilot’ mode at least on freeways and to “Summon” itself out of its parking spot. But that’s not just why Tesla is dangerous for competition. Tesla’s product seems to be the most advanced commercially-viable implementation of autonomous car technology – seeing how the Model 3 is only expected to cost $35,000, which means the heat is really on for the other larger traditional automobile players (and also on Google and Apple) to commercialize their own autonomous car technology, and make it accessible to regular consumers, before Tesla takes the road from beneath their wheels.

–(13)–


By Rahul Vijh April 7, 2016

The recent Model 3 announcement by Tesla took the industry by storm and saw Tesla collecting a whopping $276 million in preorders in a matter of days. In focus in particular was the autopilot features on the new Tesla car – which meant that Autonomous Cars (a.k.a. driverless cars or self-driven cars) are �nally breaching the line between concept and mainstream.

We have seen autonomous cars coming for years now. Google has been testing extensively its self-driving car technology under the “Google X” project since 2012 with overwhelmingly positive results. Google’s autonomous cars have driven well over 1 million miles (equivalent to 75 years of U.S. adult driving) with 15 accidents – with only 1 accident being the car’s fault. This one accident, in February 2016, the self-driving car attempted to avoid sandbags blocking its path and struck a bus. Ironically, shortly thereafter, Google was granted a patent on detecting buses by autonomous cars (of course, the patent had been �led back in March 2014).

Fueled by Google’s example, several other car manufacturers and technology companies have also been actively developing the technology and trying to commercialize the concept. Apple, Baidu, Toyota, Robert Bosch and Nissan have all dedicated resources and signi�cant investments to build upon the development. General Motors’ $500 million investment into Lyft is seen by most experts as groundwork for an autonomous ride sharing network.

Though e�orts have escalated signi�cantly in the last �ve years, autonomous cars are not a new concept. Initial research can be traced back all the way to the 1920s when Houdina Radio Control demonstrated a radio controlled car in front of the New York public. In 1939, Futurama depicted cars which could use embedded systems in and under roadways to guide themselves. Later, during the 1960s, several universities started active research on autonomous cars technology with The Ohio State University and Stanford University being pioneers, though almost all the research at the time was focused on modifying roadways to guide autonomous cars. The 1980s saw the change of focus from modifying road systems to improving cars to be autonomous irrespective of road conditions. Mercedes-Benz demonstrated a robotic van that could run in busy city streets, making autonomous technology a distinct reality, albeit not commercially

viable yet. Since then, research has progressed at considerate pace – with most car manufacturers, technology companies, more universities like Carnegie Mellon University and even DARPA, making signi�cant advances.

The world’s largest automotive supplier by sales, Robert Bosch, collaborated with the second-largest high-de�nition mapping company by sales, TomTom to ensure continuous �ow of high de�nition mapping data. TomTom’s maps are already being used in cars being tested by Bosch on highways in the U.S and Germany. Bosch will use its engineering expertise to help make TomTom’s maps more accurate and work seamlessly with data produced real time by the car using sensors. Universities have stepped up as well to collaborate with various automakers and technology companies to accelerate the research.

One of the leading research units in the �eld, Carnegie-Mellon University had announced a collaborative research lab with General Motors back in 2008. Carnegie-Mellon later also announced a collaboration with Uber on researching autonomous taxi Infrastructure for major cities. Toyota has also identi�ed the importance of universities and provided a combined funding of $50 million to MIT and Stanford. In a similar vein, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and Jaguar Land Rover have jointly invested up to €11 million into a project across 10 UK universities which will work at least in part to further research on autonomous cars.

Taking head of the imminent future, in May 2013, the National Highway Tra�c Safety Administration (NHTSA) classi�ed autonomous cars into �ve levels based on autonomous capabilities, which provides us a basic framework for pinning technological drift on a scale.

Level 0 – No Automation: Driver controls all the functions of the car. No Automation.

Level 1 – Function Speci�c Automation: One or more speci�c control systems are

automated. For example, assisted braking or stability control.

Level 2 – Combined Function Automation: At least two of the control systems are automated in unison. For Example adaptive cruise control with lane centering.

Level 3 – Limited Self Driving Automation: All the critical systems like steering, brakes and throttle are automated. The car monitors conditions to require a transition back to driver control.

Level 4: Full Self Driving Automation: All systems are fully automated requiring no human intervention.

The current decade will prove transformational for autonomous cars. Toyota’s aptly named Highway Teammate and Nissan’s Level 3 cars are expected to be launched into commercial market by 2020 – but we might see Level 4 cars entering mainstream even before that – with Google leading the way. The industry on the whole is expected to hit 10 million vehicles on the road by end of 2020 – that’s a Compound annual growth rate of 134%.

Autonomous technology is also expected to expand beyond personal vehicles to public transportation. Local governments in many metropolitan cities are aiming towards automated transit systems to de-congest their cities in an e�ective manner. The �rst buses of this kind will be introduced in Switzerland in 2016. The Chinese bus company, Yutong is running similar trials and is expected to open services to public in near future.

The graph below predicts the amount of sales by level of penetration of autonomous cars into the automotive industry. Studies such as one by VTPI.org estimates that by 2070, every car being bought will have Autonomous technology installed as a primary requirement.

As with any new emerging technology, focus also shifts to patents and patent ownership trends on that technology. Research shows that technologies such as Adaptive Cruise Control and Anti-Collision

Systems have the highest number of patents/patent applications �lings, followed by Braking Control Mechanism and Communication Systems. Media and Sonar Systems have the least number of patent �lings with only 396 and 597 patents/patent applications respectively.

The number of application �lings has constantly increased from 1995 to today – with some deceleration in 2009 due to the economic recession of 2008-09 when a majority of the automobile makers saw cash �ows dwindle. The graph shows a dip after 2013 as many of the applications �led haven’t been published yet but we can assume that the number of �lings in 2015 will cross the 2500 mark and the positive growth in this technology would continue.

Looking at total patent ownership, as shown in the image below, Toyota, Robert Bosch and Nissan have the most patents relevant to autonomous cars with 3110, 2665, and 1169 patents and applications respectively. Volkswagen-Porsche (1140) has strong a portfolio in signaling and collision responsive systems while Daimler (961) has a strong portfolio in Collision Responsive Systems, Collision Detection and Pedestrian Safety Systems. Mitsubishi (231) has so far concentrated on signaling and Vehicle Steering Systems, while Panasonic (220) has patents on Vehicle Steering and Passenger Safety Systems.

The list of top 20 assignees is dominated by automobile manufacturers like Toyota, Nissan, and Volkswagen. Automobile suppliers like Robert Bosch, Valeo SA and Mando Corporation also have a signi�cant number of patents in the areas of signaling and steering systems.

Alphabet (Google) which has been spearheading autonomous cars holds 238 patents/patent applications, majority of which are in V2V and V2I communications hinting that Google will rely on the same “leading from behind” approach with autonomous cars that it followed with Android OS for the smartphone industry. Tesla is also expected to play an important role in this space, but in terms of patents owned already, does not �gure in this top 20 list.

Despite the small portfolio size, Tesla oft shares spotlight with Google – and has announced that the new Model 3 cars shipping in 2017 will be able to run in ‘Autopilot’ mode at least on freeways and to “Summon” itself out of its parking spot. But that’s not just why Tesla is dangerous for competition. Tesla’s product seems to be the most advanced commercially-viable implementation of autonomous car technology – seeing how the Model 3 is only expected to cost $35,000, which means the heat is really on for the other larger traditional automobile players (and also on Google and Apple) to commercialize their own autonomous car technology, and make it accessible to regular consumers, before Tesla takes the road from beneath their wheels.

–(14)–


Story By: Rahul Vijh

By Guy Daniels April 1, 2016

If you thought patents got ugly with LTE, just wait until 5G

Contd.

Top players in 5G IPR revealed in new report

Qualcomm, Nokia and Ericsson face competition from other vendors and NPEs

Intel says a $400 smartphone incurs $120 in IP royalties

The number of legal patent disputes around 3G and LTE, many of which are still ongoing, shows the immense value of patents and IPRs in the competitive telecoms sector. No matter how much we may all like this unpleasantness to go away, you can be sure it won’t, and that the arrival of 5G with its associated new technologies and processes will only compound the issue. If you want to be competitive in 5G, then you had best make sure you have a stockpile of IPRs and patents at your disposal.

For example, a recent academic paper by Intel’s associate general counsel Ann Armstrong concludes that for a $400 Android or Windows smartphone, the royalty payments alone total in excess of $120, which is almost equal to the cost of device’s components. The largest two items are the cellular baseband and the WiFi chip, each costing about $50 in royalty payments. This is serious money (and justi�cation, if it was ever needed, of Intel’s early commitment to 5G R&D).

Technology-focused law �rm

LexInnova has published analysis on the likely patent landscape for 5G and �nds that while early analysis shows that Qualcomm will still be the IP leader, it may be not as dominant as in LTE. Last year, Qualcomm reportedly made $8bn in revenue from IP royalty payments. Microsoft is estimated to have made more than $2bn in just Android licensing revenue in 2015, and the mobile licensing revenues of Ericsson and Nokia both approached $1bn in the year.

LexInnova says it undertook its study “to provide early knowledge to in-house IP counsels, enabling them to devise strategies for IP management for 5G. This will allow companies involved in application and services for mobile commerce to develop intellectual property and partner with companies in order to minimise licensing cost and maximise licensing revenue.”

As the LexInnova report states: “Being just a mobile component or technology service vendor

o�ers limited revenue and pro�tability. IP licensing is much more pro�table as it doesn’t require excess manufacturing and operations costs needed for component design and mobile services.”

Potential 5G IPR royalty revenue

LexInnova says 5G mobile technologies royalty revenues are expected to be more distributed among companies than LTE due to hybrid nature of technologies involved. There will also likely be more NPEs (non-practicing entities, such as InterDigital) in amongst the leading assignees, which would also mean a greater level of licensing and litigation activity. Meanwhile, handset manufacturers such as Apple and Samsung are also working on 5G IP development (especially on baseband processors) in order to minimise IP licensing costs, and Intel is expected to make far greater inroads in 5G than it managed with LTE. We should also see more cross-licensing agreements with 5G.

LexInnova classi�es the 5G network into three components for analysis purposes:

Wireless Radio Front End/Radio Access Network

Modulation/Waveforms

Core Packet Networking Technologies

With regards the RAN and wireless front end, technologies ripe for an IP grab are centimetre wave (10GHz-30GHz) and millimetre wave (30GHz-300GHz) radio, beam steering or beamforming techniques, and massive MIMO. As the graph above shows, Nokia, Ericsson and Qualcomm all rank in the top �ve, with Interdigital expected to generate further licensing activity.

Modulation schemes are used with baseband processors of a mobile system. 5G will require non-orthogonal transmission schemes, rather than the OFDM of LTE-Advanced. Some schemes under consideration include Filter-Bank Multi-Carrier (FBMC) transmission, Universal Filtered Multi-Carrier (UFMC) transmission and Generalised Frequency-Division Multiplexing (GFDM). Qualcomm is by far the leading patent holder in this area, but faces stronger competition in 5G.

Finally, with regards core networking technologies, Network function virtualisation (NFV) and software de�ned networks (SDN) sit at the heart of 5G architectures, together with

smart networking technologies such as higher Inter-Node Coordination and backhaul, as well as Access Link Integration to improve network data throughout and e�ciency. The network control will require Self Organising Network (SON) technology, Context Aware Networking and Information Centric Networking. There will be increased cellular and WiFi network interworking and short-range device-to-device communication. Nokia, Qualcomm, Cisco, Intel and Ericsson are in top six of LexInnova’s list, along with NPE Headwater Partners.

The number of patents and key underlying technologies for 5G mobile networks will evolve signi�cantly within next �ve years, and so much will depend on what technologies are chosen to form the 3GPP-led network standard for 5G and the ITU’s IMT-2020 radio access technology. The race is on, and the prize is substantial.

chart © TTV, data © LexInnova


–(15)–

By Guy Daniels April 1, 2016

Top players in 5G IPR revealed in new report

Qualcomm, Nokia and Ericsson face competition from other vendors and NPEs

Intel says a $400 smartphone incurs $120 in IP royalties

The number of legal patent disputes around 3G and LTE, many of which are still ongoing, shows the immense value of patents and IPRs in the competitive telecoms sector. No matter how much we may all like this unpleasantness to go away, you can be sure it won’t, and that the arrival of 5G with its associated new technologies and processes will only compound the issue. If you want to be competitive in 5G, then you had best make sure you have a stockpile of IPRs and patents at your disposal.

For example, a recent academic paper by Intel’s associate general counsel Ann Armstrong concludes that for a $400 Android or Windows smartphone, the royalty payments alone total in excess of $120, which is almost equal to the cost of device’s components. The largest two items are the cellular baseband and the WiFi chip, each costing about $50 in royalty payments. This is serious money (and justi�cation, if it was ever needed, of Intel’s early commitment to 5G R&D).

Technology-focused law �rm

LexInnova has published analysis on the likely patent landscape for 5G and �nds that while early analysis shows that Qualcomm will still be the IP leader, it may be not as dominant as in LTE. Last year, Qualcomm reportedly made $8bn in revenue from IP royalty payments. Microsoft is estimated to have made more than $2bn in just Android licensing revenue in 2015, and the mobile licensing revenues of Ericsson and Nokia both approached $1bn in the year.

LexInnova says it undertook its study “to provide early knowledge to in-house IP counsels, enabling them to devise strategies for IP management for 5G. This will allow companies involved in application and services for mobile commerce to develop intellectual property and partner with companies in order to minimise licensing cost and maximise licensing revenue.”

As the LexInnova report states: “Being just a mobile component or technology service vendor

o�ers limited revenue and pro�tability. IP licensing is much more pro�table as it doesn’t require excess manufacturing and operations costs needed for component design and mobile services.”

Potential 5G IPR royalty revenue

LexInnova says 5G mobile technologies royalty revenues are expected to be more distributed among companies than LTE due to hybrid nature of technologies involved. There will also likely be more NPEs (non-practicing entities, such as InterDigital) in amongst the leading assignees, which would also mean a greater level of licensing and litigation activity. Meanwhile, handset manufacturers such as Apple and Samsung are also working on 5G IP development (especially on baseband processors) in order to minimise IP licensing costs, and Intel is expected to make far greater inroads in 5G than it managed with LTE. We should also see more cross-licensing agreements with 5G.

LexInnova classi�es the 5G network into three components for analysis purposes:

Wireless Radio Front End/Radio Access Network

Modulation/Waveforms

Core Packet Networking Technologies

With regards the RAN and wireless front end, technologies ripe for an IP grab are centimetre wave (10GHz-30GHz) and millimetre wave (30GHz-300GHz) radio, beam steering or beamforming techniques, and massive MIMO. As the graph above shows, Nokia, Ericsson and Qualcomm all rank in the top �ve, with Interdigital expected to generate further licensing activity.

Modulation schemes are used with baseband processors of a mobile system. 5G will require non-orthogonal transmission schemes, rather than the OFDM of LTE-Advanced. Some schemes under consideration include Filter-Bank Multi-Carrier (FBMC) transmission, Universal Filtered Multi-Carrier (UFMC) transmission and Generalised Frequency-Division Multiplexing (GFDM). Qualcomm is by far the leading patent holder in this area, but faces stronger competition in 5G.

Finally, with regards core networking technologies, Network function virtualisation (NFV) and software de�ned networks (SDN) sit at the heart of 5G architectures, together with

smart networking technologies such as higher Inter-Node Coordination and backhaul, as well as Access Link Integration to improve network data throughout and e�ciency. The network control will require Self Organising Network (SON) technology, Context Aware Networking and Information Centric Networking. There will be increased cellular and WiFi network interworking and short-range device-to-device communication. Nokia, Qualcomm, Cisco, Intel and Ericsson are in top six of LexInnova’s list, along with NPE Headwater Partners.

The number of patents and key underlying technologies for 5G mobile networks will evolve signi�cantly within next �ve years, and so much will depend on what technologies are chosen to form the 3GPP-led network standard for 5G and the ITU’s IMT-2020 radio access technology. The race is on, and the prize is substantial.


Story By: Guy Daniels

–(16)–

By Stilgherrian March 31, 2016

How Australia can cash in on the cyber boom

Contd.

Australia is a world leader in developing infosec ideas, but bad at commercialising them. There's a plan to �x that.The shortage of cybersecurity talent is holding back fast-growing companies like Atlassian -- so is the lack of STEM graduates here in Australia.

"From a commercial point of view, I kinda need more, and I need it, like, yesterday," said the company's director of security, Craig Davies.

Atlassian set up its cybersecurity centre in Austin, Texas, two years ago, but the company is keen to continue investing in Australia. Last year Atlassian hired 80 graduates here, assigning three to security, and their 2016 recruitment road tour has just started.

Davies wants graduates with solid practical skills, an issue he thinks universities need to address.

"I'd really like to see the students that come in already have that mindset of: 'This is the �aw, and this is what I can do to take advantage of it -- or more importantly, how I can join those together to create havoc and mayhem'," he said.

"I'm looking for that puzzle-solving ability, but they've got to learn aggressive techniques. They can't all just learn defence and theoretical. They've got to learn the bad side of it as well, to understand how to defend against it -- and more importantly, not just defend, but identify earlier in the cycle so the architectures become more robust."

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) has also been hearing industry calls for students with more hands-on experience.

"They don't feel that graduates from university come out ready to do the jobs that people have," said Lynwen Connick, PM&C's First Assistant Secretary for Policy and Intelligence.

"We've been having a lot of that as part of our Cyber Security Review to see what we can do with universities to help make sure we connect the requirements of business to what's being taught at universities."

That Cyber Security Review is expected to be released "shortly", Connick said.

Filling the global cyber talent gap isn't the only way Australia could capitalise on the projected growth in security spending from $75 billion annually now to an estimated $170 billion by 2020.

Australian companies are already ranked number four in the world for cybersecurity-related patents, according to the report Network Security: Overview of patent out-licencing opportunities published by intellectual property consultants LexInnova Technologies in 2015.

The Cyber Security Growth Centre, with AU$30 million funding announced as part of the National Innovation and Science Agenda in December 2015, is designed to leverage our expertise.

"The Growth Centre is about bringing together researchers, startups who can commercialise research ideas and concepts, [and] connecting bigger businesses who have problems that they want to

get solved," Connick said.

"The Growth Centre will develop a plan for how we grow the cybersecurity sector in Australia, [and] how we connect our sector to international markets."

Connick and Davies were speaking at D61+ Live in Sydney on Wednesday. This event was the inaugural showcase of the work of Data61, the new organisation formed by the merger of NICTA with CSIRO's Digital Productivity research teams.

Data61's chief executive o�cer Adrian Turner is bullish about the potential.

"The good news about cyber is [that] it's an arms race, so it's constantly evolving," Turner said.

"Even though we're behind in creating industry ... we can catch up. We have the talent, the capability, the universities. We have amazing work going on in the country to create that industry. And I think what's going to be important is to identify those areas where there's either a market failure, or we have capability and understanding of the problem to build critical mass."

Examples include the development of trustworthy and resilient systems, machine-learning analytics, and even behavioural economics that can be used to analyse the intersection of people and security.

Data61 has been collaborating with the US Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and Boeing to develop secure

communications and �ight control systems for drones, and that's already delivering results.

In one trial, a drone helicopter was equipped with a communication system based on the seL4 proven-correct microkernel, plus a camera system based on Linux. DARPA's red-team penetration testers were given root access on the camera system, but couldn't hack into the drone's communications.

Independent assessments have rated Data61 as having one of the top �ve machine learning teams in the world, Turner said.

Atlassian's Davies is impressed with some of Data61's work.

"Machine learning is an area that we are super interested in from a security analytics point of view, because of the size and scale across our entire infrastructure ... Australians have a great ability to look at really tough problems and go: 'Oh hang on, we could do it this way'," Davies said.

"I walk into a place like here [D61+ Live] and I see much better ideas," he said. "In the US, vendors do have good ideas, but they're 'swamped by all the other stu�' in the companies as they try to be all things to enterprise customers in every sector.

"What I get worried about is the small and medium business sector, particularly in Australia. That is an area that is ripe for breach, and is having breaches all the time. It is ripe for clever-thinking ideas," he said. Davies said it would be the same in the US market, but "the scale might be di�erent".

Turner says Israel's approach, where a lot of the early companies and capabilities were spun out of the government sector, could be a model for Australia.

"This sense of being able to commercialise technology from the government sector, and also have government be an early adopter of technology, really helped to spark the industry there," Turner said.

"We've got to create a cyber industry, create depth in the talent pool, to be able to support our other industries as well ... We need to get a critical mass of researchers to attract the investment."

Featured (Report): Network Security

–(17)–

By Stilgherrian March 31, 2016

The shortage of cybersecurity talent is holding back fast-growing companies like Atlassian -- so is the lack of STEM graduates here in Australia.

"From a commercial point of view, I kinda need more, and I need it, like, yesterday," said the company's director of security, Craig Davies.

Atlassian set up its cybersecurity centre in Austin, Texas, two years ago, but the company is keen to continue investing in Australia. Last year Atlassian hired 80 graduates here, assigning three to security, and their 2016 recruitment road tour has just started.

Davies wants graduates with solid practical skills, an issue he thinks universities need to address.

"I'd really like to see the students that come in already have that mindset of: 'This is the �aw, and this is what I can do to take advantage of it -- or more importantly, how I can join those together to create havoc and mayhem'," he said.

"I'm looking for that puzzle-solving ability, but they've got to learn aggressive techniques. They can't all just learn defence and theoretical. They've got to learn the bad side of it as well, to understand how to defend against it -- and more importantly, not just defend, but identify earlier in the cycle so the architectures become more robust."

The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) has also been hearing industry calls for students with more hands-on experience.

"They don't feel that graduates from university come out ready to do the jobs that people have," said Lynwen Connick, PM&C's First Assistant Secretary for Policy and Intelligence.

"We've been having a lot of that as part of our Cyber Security Review to see what we can do with universities to help make sure we connect the requirements of business to what's being taught at universities."

That Cyber Security Review is expected to be released "shortly", Connick said.

Filling the global cyber talent gap isn't the only way Australia could capitalise on the projected growth in security spending from $75 billion annually now to an estimated $170 billion by 2020.

Australian companies are already ranked number four in the world for cybersecurity-related patents, according to the report Network Security: Overview of patent out-licencing opportunities published by intellectual property consultants LexInnova Technologies in 2015.

The Cyber Security Growth Centre, with AU$30 million funding announced as part of the National Innovation and Science Agenda in December 2015, is designed to leverage our expertise.

"The Growth Centre is about bringing together researchers, startups who can commercialise research ideas and concepts, [and] connecting bigger businesses who have problems that they want to

get solved," Connick said.

"The Growth Centre will develop a plan for how we grow the cybersecurity sector in Australia, [and] how we connect our sector to international markets."

Connick and Davies were speaking at D61+ Live in Sydney on Wednesday. This event was the inaugural showcase of the work of Data61, the new organisation formed by the merger of NICTA with CSIRO's Digital Productivity research teams.

Data61's chief executive o�cer Adrian Turner is bullish about the potential.

"The good news about cyber is [that] it's an arms race, so it's constantly evolving," Turner said.

"Even though we're behind in creating industry ... we can catch up. We have the talent, the capability, the universities. We have amazing work going on in the country to create that industry. And I think what's going to be important is to identify those areas where there's either a market failure, or we have capability and understanding of the problem to build critical mass."

Examples include the development of trustworthy and resilient systems, machine-learning analytics, and even behavioural economics that can be used to analyse the intersection of people and security.

Data61 has been collaborating with the US Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and Boeing to develop secure

communications and �ight control systems for drones, and that's already delivering results.

In one trial, a drone helicopter was equipped with a communication system based on the seL4 proven-correct microkernel, plus a camera system based on Linux. DARPA's red-team penetration testers were given root access on the camera system, but couldn't hack into the drone's communications.

Independent assessments have rated Data61 as having one of the top �ve machine learning teams in the world, Turner said.

Atlassian's Davies is impressed with some of Data61's work.

"Machine learning is an area that we are super interested in from a security analytics point of view, because of the size and scale across our entire infrastructure ... Australians have a great ability to look at really tough problems and go: 'Oh hang on, we could do it this way'," Davies said.

"I walk into a place like here [D61+ Live] and I see much better ideas," he said. "In the US, vendors do have good ideas, but they're 'swamped by all the other stu�' in the companies as they try to be all things to enterprise customers in every sector.

"What I get worried about is the small and medium business sector, particularly in Australia. That is an area that is ripe for breach, and is having breaches all the time. It is ripe for clever-thinking ideas," he said. Davies said it would be the same in the US market, but "the scale might be di�erent".

Turner says Israel's approach, where a lot of the early companies and capabilities were spun out of the government sector, could be a model for Australia.

"This sense of being able to commercialise technology from the government sector, and also have government be an early adopter of technology, really helped to spark the industry there," Turner said.

"We've got to create a cyber industry, create depth in the talent pool, to be able to support our other industries as well ... We need to get a critical mass of researchers to attract the investment."

Featured (Report): Network Security

Story By: Stilgherrian

–(18)–

By Rana Pratap & Rahul Vijh March 31, 2016

5G Mobile Networks: The Next Big Battleground

Contd.

The so-called “Smartphone Wars” were the de�ning buzzword for the IP industry in the �rst half of this decade. Like most “wars”, the smartphone wars resulted from an indirect but transformational change: 4G. The jury is still out whether Apple, Google or Samsung won the smartphone wars, but looking at the telecom industry in its entirety, a clear winner does emerge: Qualcomm. Qualcomm capitulated not only on its research but also on it in�uence in standardization to become a clear central force when 4G was rolled out. By the time, other players caught on, Qualcomm already owned the bulk of intellectual property that enabled 4G operating speeds, especially around baseband processors.

As the world now prepares for the next generation (5G) networks (rollouts are still 3-5 years away), companies like Apple, Samsung and Intel are working hard to ensure they stay ahead of the curve on 5G research and development.

The Next Generation Mobile Networks Alliance de�nes the following requirements for 5G networks:

Data rates of several tens of megabits per second should be supported for tens of thousands of users

1 gigabit per second to be o�ered simultaneously to many workers on the same o�ce �oor

Several hundreds of thousands of simultaneous connections to be supported for massive sensor deployments

Spectral e�ciency should be signi�cantly enhanced compared to 4G

Coverage should be improved

Signaling e�ciency should be enhanced

Latency should be reduced signi�cantly compared to LTE.

The estimated patent royalties are in excess of $120 on a hypothetical $400 smart-phone—which is almost equal to the cost of device’s compo-nents. The royalty demands for 4G LTE cellular functionality approach $60 for a $400 smartphone but the average cost of the baseband processor that implements cellular functionality is as little as $10 to $13. This implies that the companies involved in 5G technology development need to have strong patent portfolio monetization strategies if they are to maximize pro�ts from their R&D dollars. Being just a mobile component or technolo-gy service vendor o�ers limited revenue and pro�tability. Moreover, IP licensing is much more pro�table as it doesn’t require excess manufacturing and operations costs needed for component design and mobile services.

5G is expected to generate even higher revenues from applications and services due to explosion on mobile application and services because of broadband-like speed, which are crucial for some of the emerging

technologies like IoT, Wearables and Virtual/Augmented Reality. Revenues for 5G services will exceed $65 billion by 2025, according to a forecast from Juniper Research. 5G mobile technologies royalty revenues are expected to be more distributed among companies than 4G due to hybrid nature of technologies involved as well as a higher amount of expected commerce generated on 5G network. Due to the higher than predicted performance, 5G is expected to be a primary source of connectivity to the internet replacing in-home broadband services altogether in most cases. New services include high-de�nition 4K-8K video, self-driving cars, virtual/augmented reality, and myriad of IoT devices.

The early signs of increased 5G patent licensing activity are evident from inclusion of collaboration between Ericsson and Apple for the development 5G in patent dispute settlement. Clearly Apple is making a strategic move to minimize the licensing cost for 5G. Many handset makers will proactively do such deals over the next few years to prevent most of the licensing revenue from going to a single company like Qualcomm for 4G-LTE. This will allow the most pro�table handset makers like Apple (Ax series) and Samsung (Exynos

series) – who build their own smartphone application processors – to be integrated with 5G baseband processor for e�ciency and cost.

The key feature of 5G network will be wireless gigabit throughput during normal use. The 5G network will be a mishmash of wireless data connectivity technologies providing seamless wireless gigabit connectivity through Network Function Virtualization Infrastructure. The 5G base station is expected to be comprised multi technology RAT (Radio Access Technology) acting as a virtualized wireless network that can seamlessly communicate with any device with any wireless technology. The next version of LTE-Advanced is going to act as a bridge between 4G and 5G. LTE-A is essentially a precursor of 5G radio access network (RAN) below 6 GHz. LTE-A already comprises of Carrier Aggregation, Increased MIMO, Coordinated Multipoint (CoMP), Relay Station and Heterogeneous Network. The carrier frequencies from 10 GHz to 100 GHz will be added on top to enable wireless gigabit connectivity to each mobile device.

Mobile networks comprised of a radio front end that incorpo-rates an antenna coupled with transmitter with power ampli�-ers, receiver with low noise ampli�er and carrier frequency generating elements. The radio front end connects to a modu-lator that either modulates or de-modulates the digital data to be sent/received over the carrier frequency by radio front end. The modulator connects to higher level of TCP/IP network-ing module. At this level the data is packetized to be used by applications or pushed to a wired network or cloud. Thus on a very broad level, patents

related to 5G can be bucketed into the following 3 categories.

1. Wireless Radio Front End/Radio Access Network

The wireless network technolo-gy of 2G,3G and 4G have been primarily used sub 6GHz carrier frequency but 5G is expected to use centimeter wave (10GHz-30GHz) and millimeter wave (30GHz-300GHz) radio front ends. The high frequency operation allows for very high bandwidth, hence multi gigabit wireless data communication. The disadvantage of high frequency carriers is that they are susceptible to high path loss and require line-of-sight radios. To overcome this beam steering solutions will be required in dense urban deployments. Google (Project Loon) and Facebook are already using mmW radio front-ends to test next generation gigabit internet network deployments. Massive MIMO is another technique used to improve data throughout and spectral e�ciency by using multiple antennas at the transmitter and receiver. MIMO uses complex digital signal processing to set up multiple data streams on the same channel. LTE networks and 802.11ac support MIMO but 5G will use more scaled up massive MIMO.

As expected, telecom network-ing equipment suppliers, Nokia and Ericsson, are in the top 5

along with 4G leader, Qualcomm. The presence of NPE Interdigital is expected to generate licensing activity. Chinese entities have a signi�-cant presence in top assignees indicating that it may have a similar 5G deployment timeline to the USA.

2. Modulation/Waveforms

Modulation resides in the baseband processor of a mobile system. LTE-A which is a bridge between 4G and 5G allows for spectrum sharing and improved spectral e�ciency through use of OFDM (Orthogonal frequency division multiplex) modulation. OFDM is a transmission technique that uses a large number of closely-spaced carriers that are modulated with low data rates. The 5G will require non-orthogonal transmission schemes. Several modi�ed multi-carrier modulation schemes are also under consideration for 5G radio access such as, Filter-Bank Multi-Carrier (FBMC) transmission, Universal Filtered Multi-Carrier (UFMC) transmission and Generalized Frequency-Division Multiplexing (GFDM.

Qualcomm is the top assignee in this category and appears to be carrying its leadership position in baseband technology from 4G to 5G. The entire 4G baseband processor market was dominated by Qualcomm in the USA. Intel, which is developing its own 4G-LTE baseband processor, is among the top 5 assignees. Nokia, Interdigital and Fujitsu round up the top 5 list of assignees. It is also interesting to note that Apple does have an IP presence in 5G baseband/modulation technology. It certainly has the

resources to design its own baseband processors to pair them with mobile application processors in order to improve performance and cost, especially if Samsung does so �rst. Samsung has already switched to its own internal Exynos application processor starting from Galaxy S6. However, based on IP strength, Qualcomm is best suited to design the �rst 5G baseband processor.

3. Core Packet Networking Technologies

The higher layers of 5G networking will require network function virtualization and will involve several smart networking technologies. These smart networking technologies include higher Inter-Node Coordination and backhaul as well as access Link Integration to improve network data throughout and e�ciency. The network control will require Self-Organizing-Network, Context Aware Networking and Information Centric Network-ing. There will be increased Cellular and Wi-Fi network interworking and device-to-de-vice communication to provide gigabit connectivity for very short distances.

Nokia, Qualcomm, Cisco and Intel are in top 5 along with NPE Headwater Partners in this category.

Conclusion

The number of patents and key underlying technologies for 5G mobile networks will evolve signi�cantly within next 5 years. However, early analysis shows that Qualcomm will still be the IP leader but may be not as dominant as in 4G-LTE. The device makers like Apple, Samsung, and Lenovo are also

working on 5G IP development in order to minimize IP licensing costs.

Intel is the only mobile chip vendor other than Qualcomm to be in the top 5 across three technology domains. This indicates that Intel is committed to compete in providing chips for 5G devices and networks. However, despite its commitment to do so for 4G, Intel has not been able to land any handset design wins within the US.

There is also noticeable presence of NPEs in top assignees in all three categories indicating there would be a high degree of licensing and litigation activity in this space in the 2018-2024 timeframe. As the judicial pendulum continues to swing between for and against the NPE business model, it remains to be seen whether NPEs are able and are allowed to capitulate on this huge opportunity once the actual 5G rollouts begin.

Featured Author: Rana J Pratap (Principal Consultant - Technology ) & Rahul Vijh (Director - Client Solutions)

–(19)–

By Rana Pratap & Rahul Vijh March 31, 2016

The so-called “Smartphone Wars” were the de�ning buzzword for the IP industry in the �rst half of this decade. Like most “wars”, the smartphone wars resulted from an indirect but transformational change: 4G. The jury is still out whether Apple, Google or Samsung won the smartphone wars, but looking at the telecom industry in its entirety, a clear winner does emerge: Qualcomm. Qualcomm capitulated not only on its research but also on it in�uence in standardization to become a clear central force when 4G was rolled out. By the time, other players caught on, Qualcomm already owned the bulk of intellectual property that enabled 4G operating speeds, especially around baseband processors.

As the world now prepares for the next generation (5G) networks (rollouts are still 3-5 years away), companies like Apple, Samsung and Intel are working hard to ensure they stay ahead of the curve on 5G research and development.

The Next Generation Mobile Networks Alliance de�nes the following requirements for 5G networks:

Data rates of several tens of megabits per second should be supported for tens of thousands of users

1 gigabit per second to be o�ered simultaneously to many workers on the same o�ce �oor

Several hundreds of thousands of simultaneous connections to be supported for massive sensor deployments

Spectral e�ciency should be signi�cantly enhanced compared to 4G

Coverage should be improved

Signaling e�ciency should be enhanced

Latency should be reduced signi�cantly compared to LTE.

The estimated patent royalties are in excess of $120 on a hypothetical $400 smart-phone—which is almost equal to the cost of device’s compo-nents. The royalty demands for 4G LTE cellular functionality approach $60 for a $400 smartphone but the average cost of the baseband processor that implements cellular functionality is as little as $10 to $13. This implies that the companies involved in 5G technology development need to have strong patent portfolio monetization strategies if they are to maximize pro�ts from their R&D dollars. Being just a mobile component or technolo-gy service vendor o�ers limited revenue and pro�tability. Moreover, IP licensing is much more pro�table as it doesn’t require excess manufacturing and operations costs needed for component design and mobile services.

5G is expected to generate even higher revenues from applications and services due to explosion on mobile application and services because of broadband-like speed, which are crucial for some of the emerging

technologies like IoT, Wearables and Virtual/Augmented Reality. Revenues for 5G services will exceed $65 billion by 2025, according to a forecast from Juniper Research. 5G mobile technologies royalty revenues are expected to be more distributed among companies than 4G due to hybrid nature of technologies involved as well as a higher amount of expected commerce generated on 5G network. Due to the higher than predicted performance, 5G is expected to be a primary source of connectivity to the internet replacing in-home broadband services altogether in most cases. New services include high-de�nition 4K-8K video, self-driving cars, virtual/augmented reality, and myriad of IoT devices.

The early signs of increased 5G patent licensing activity are evident from inclusion of collaboration between Ericsson and Apple for the development 5G in patent dispute settlement. Clearly Apple is making a strategic move to minimize the licensing cost for 5G. Many handset makers will proactively do such deals over the next few years to prevent most of the licensing revenue from going to a single company like Qualcomm for 4G-LTE. This will allow the most pro�table handset makers like Apple (Ax series) and Samsung (Exynos

series) – who build their own smartphone application processors – to be integrated with 5G baseband processor for e�ciency and cost.

The key feature of 5G network will be wireless gigabit throughput during normal use. The 5G network will be a mishmash of wireless data connectivity technologies providing seamless wireless gigabit connectivity through Network Function Virtualization Infrastructure. The 5G base station is expected to be comprised multi technology RAT (Radio Access Technology) acting as a virtualized wireless network that can seamlessly communicate with any device with any wireless technology. The next version of LTE-Advanced is going to act as a bridge between 4G and 5G. LTE-A is essentially a precursor of 5G radio access network (RAN) below 6 GHz. LTE-A already comprises of Carrier Aggregation, Increased MIMO, Coordinated Multipoint (CoMP), Relay Station and Heterogeneous Network. The carrier frequencies from 10 GHz to 100 GHz will be added on top to enable wireless gigabit connectivity to each mobile device.

Mobile networks comprised of a radio front end that incorpo-rates an antenna coupled with transmitter with power ampli�-ers, receiver with low noise ampli�er and carrier frequency generating elements. The radio front end connects to a modu-lator that either modulates or de-modulates the digital data to be sent/received over the carrier frequency by radio front end. The modulator connects to higher level of TCP/IP network-ing module. At this level the data is packetized to be used by applications or pushed to a wired network or cloud. Thus on a very broad level, patents

related to 5G can be bucketed into the following 3 categories.

1. Wireless Radio Front End/Radio Access Network

The wireless network technolo-gy of 2G,3G and 4G have been primarily used sub 6GHz carrier frequency but 5G is expected to use centimeter wave (10GHz-30GHz) and millimeter wave (30GHz-300GHz) radio front ends. The high frequency operation allows for very high bandwidth, hence multi gigabit wireless data communication. The disadvantage of high frequency carriers is that they are susceptible to high path loss and require line-of-sight radios. To overcome this beam steering solutions will be required in dense urban deployments. Google (Project Loon) and Facebook are already using mmW radio front-ends to test next generation gigabit internet network deployments. Massive MIMO is another technique used to improve data throughout and spectral e�ciency by using multiple antennas at the transmitter and receiver. MIMO uses complex digital signal processing to set up multiple data streams on the same channel. LTE networks and 802.11ac support MIMO but 5G will use more scaled up massive MIMO.

As expected, telecom network-ing equipment suppliers, Nokia and Ericsson, are in the top 5

along with 4G leader, Qualcomm. The presence of NPE Interdigital is expected to generate licensing activity. Chinese entities have a signi�-cant presence in top assignees indicating that it may have a similar 5G deployment timeline to the USA.

2. Modulation/Waveforms

Modulation resides in the baseband processor of a mobile system. LTE-A which is a bridge between 4G and 5G allows for spectrum sharing and improved spectral e�ciency through use of OFDM (Orthogonal frequency division multiplex) modulation. OFDM is a transmission technique that uses a large number of closely-spaced carriers that are modulated with low data rates. The 5G will require non-orthogonal transmission schemes. Several modi�ed multi-carrier modulation schemes are also under consideration for 5G radio access such as, Filter-Bank Multi-Carrier (FBMC) transmission, Universal Filtered Multi-Carrier (UFMC) transmission and Generalized Frequency-Division Multiplexing (GFDM.

Qualcomm is the top assignee in this category and appears to be carrying its leadership position in baseband technology from 4G to 5G. The entire 4G baseband processor market was dominated by Qualcomm in the USA. Intel, which is developing its own 4G-LTE baseband processor, is among the top 5 assignees. Nokia, Interdigital and Fujitsu round up the top 5 list of assignees. It is also interesting to note that Apple does have an IP presence in 5G baseband/modulation technology. It certainly has the

resources to design its own baseband processors to pair them with mobile application processors in order to improve performance and cost, especially if Samsung does so �rst. Samsung has already switched to its own internal Exynos application processor starting from Galaxy S6. However, based on IP strength, Qualcomm is best suited to design the �rst 5G baseband processor.

3. Core Packet Networking Technologies

The higher layers of 5G networking will require network function virtualization and will involve several smart networking technologies. These smart networking technologies include higher Inter-Node Coordination and backhaul as well as access Link Integration to improve network data throughout and e�ciency. The network control will require Self-Organizing-Network, Context Aware Networking and Information Centric Network-ing. There will be increased Cellular and Wi-Fi network interworking and device-to-de-vice communication to provide gigabit connectivity for very short distances.

Nokia, Qualcomm, Cisco and Intel are in top 5 along with NPE Headwater Partners in this category.

Conclusion

The number of patents and key underlying technologies for 5G mobile networks will evolve signi�cantly within next 5 years. However, early analysis shows that Qualcomm will still be the IP leader but may be not as dominant as in 4G-LTE. The device makers like Apple, Samsung, and Lenovo are also

working on 5G IP development in order to minimize IP licensing costs.

Intel is the only mobile chip vendor other than Qualcomm to be in the top 5 across three technology domains. This indicates that Intel is committed to compete in providing chips for 5G devices and networks. However, despite its commitment to do so for 4G, Intel has not been able to land any handset design wins within the US.

There is also noticeable presence of NPEs in top assignees in all three categories indicating there would be a high degree of licensing and litigation activity in this space in the 2018-2024 timeframe. As the judicial pendulum continues to swing between for and against the NPE business model, it remains to be seen whether NPEs are able and are allowed to capitulate on this huge opportunity once the actual 5G rollouts begin.

Featured Author: Rana J Pratap (Principal Consultant - Technology ) & Rahul Vijh (Director - Client Solutions)

Story By: Rana Pratap

& Rahul Vijh

–(20)–

by Wen Ash 25 March, 2016

Who is the king of wearable technology? The truth was actually ...

Indeed, the launch of these two products to Apple and Google has become a �eld of wearable technology is no doubt a leader. However, if the strength of the purely technical point of view our point of view, perhaps the answer is not so - at least according to the patent consulting �rm LexInnova research, from a wearable technology aspects related patents, Microsoft is the world's oldest.

Despite the addition HoloLens, Microsoft wearable art and there is nothing impressive product launch.

The following is a list LexInnova provided:

Microsoft has 757 patents wearable technology, in which at least 53 directly related to the wrist-worn device 13 associated with the glasses.

Philips ranked second, with 756 patents; Google ranked third, with 602 patents.

Apple only 197 patents, slightly higher than the 192 Fitbit.

Chief Technical Advisor LexInnova Rana Pratap (Rana Pratap) said that in the United States, patents will stay ahead of the general time of 20 years. Although some of Microsoft's patents little bit dated, but overall is still relatively strong, the quantity and quality are excellent. Meanwhile,LexInnova uses a proprietary algorithm to evaluate the patent group, the algorithm involving some 50 factors, including age,

frequency, etc, patents, patents of other companies cited patentapplication.

Microsoft patent choke save big move?First time being put aside "Microsoft strongest" this topic, Microsoft two years ago, the newlyappointed CEO Nadella (Satya Nadella) really solid two.

Basically technology companies are playing such a trick is two or develop products based on apatent or patents technology, or together with two strokes, Microsoft is no exception. In January,the disclosure of which, since December 2003 launched its IP licensing program has signed 1200copies of a variety of technology licensing agreement. The recent wearable technology relatedagreements, licensed to the watch manufacturer Olio Devices.

Strategy Analytics analyst Raskind of this opinion: "Maybe Microsoft wants in the �eld oftechnology licensing for Google tight marking to revive past glory, which is probably the reason theytraded with Olio." And Pratap said,

Microsoft's independent study of 700 Microsoft patents arebased. He said: "According to our analysis, there are 49 patents and applications are derived fromthe acquisition Tangis, seven from Osterhout Group acquired, as well as an acquisition fromAntenova come."

After all, if Microsoft really wearable art hold back the big move, they plan what is it?

Technology forecasting and strategic consulting �rm Webbmedia group's founder Amy Weber (Amy Webb) said: "I do not want to wait until Christmas to see this wearable device Microsoft retail stores." Weber, and many people think that Microsoft's patent portfolio the main advantage of these shortterm market was more pro�table.

While Microsoft intellectual property in the stock unexpectedly, but the company is just anembedded product development in the sale of wearable, is the health of tracking bracelet Band 2.Of course, the mystery HoloLens will also be on sale this month.

In addition, Microsoft executives rarely talk about their huge stock of patents. In fact, Microsoftdeclined to comment.

Pratap thanked Microsoft's large development team, he said: "Every time we do this kind ofpatent analysis, will �nd that the industry leader is always the most patent applications" accordingto market research �rm statistics of Statista, Microsoft's R & D spending gradually increased since 2010, reaching $ 12 billion in 2015.

Pratap pointed out that Microsoft's patent wearable group before they wear product line hasalready begun to establish research and development, the �rst related patents from other research projects. Later, step by step, these innovations was only wearable positioned in the emerging markets. However, these tricks in the tech industry and manufacturing are fairly common.

Microsoft created its technology licensing business empireLike all successful technology innovators, Microsoft described as seasoned in developing

products and licensing technology licensing.

The �rst of those years �ghting against the face came from Microsoft MSDOS and Window operating system, these two patents that Microsoft is too broad in the United States and Europe are playing for a few years antitrust lawsuit. Of course there are cases of failure. Microsoft licensed its intellectual property to the digital music hardware development companies Zune, but any player who can not save this evening industry last fall or discontinued.

Weber said, regardless of the development of products or technology licensing each have their own advantages and disadvantages to technology licensing generally more moderate, lowrisk, sustainable income, but always found "do the wedding dress for her people," the horse. And higher product development costs, and the success or failure of the product had its own sheep. But the higher the potential return, the market will drive the success of the company success.

Although Weber said it did not

come into contact with "Deep Throat" source, but she still thinkMicrosoft can not just focus on the �eld of intellectual property, such gestures can not only �tnesstracker.

In starting it seems, is the most direct market B2B applications (just as the same as MSDOS),she put this mode is called "B2D", BusinesstoDoctor. Today, wearable health monitoring and diagnostics equipment growing, Microsoft should continue to develop, so that health class wearabledevices become smaller, cheaper, more perfect. But the acquisition of rival Apple is actively mobiledevice platforms and software application platform health class Market survey shows that nearly70 percent of doctors use medical application on the iPhone, which Apple is a good start.

Taking into account the promised new blockbuster earnings and Apple's strategy ofcontainment of these two factors, Nadella might be more carefully chosen patented technology topromote Microsoft's next innovation.

(3)

(2)

(1)

Featured: Rana J Pratap (Principal Consultant - Technology)

–(21)–

by Wen Ash 25 March, 2016

Indeed, the launch of these two products to Apple and Google has become a �eld of wearable technology is no doubt a leader. However, if the strength of the purely technical point of view our point of view, perhaps the answer is not so - at least according to the patent consulting �rm LexInnova research, from a wearable technology aspects related patents, Microsoft is the world's oldest.

Despite the addition HoloLens, Microsoft wearable art and there is nothing impressive product launch.

The following is a list LexInnova provided:

Microsoft has 757 patents wearable technology, in which at least 53 directly related to the wrist-worn device 13 associated with the glasses.

Philips ranked second, with 756 patents; Google ranked third, with 602 patents.

Apple only 197 patents, slightly higher than the 192 Fitbit.

Chief Technical Advisor LexInnova Rana Pratap (Rana Pratap) said that in the United States, patents will stay ahead of the general time of 20 years. Although some of Microsoft's patents little bit dated, but overall is still relatively strong, the quantity and quality are excellent. Meanwhile,LexInnova uses a proprietary algorithm to evaluate the patent group, the algorithm involving some 50 factors, including age,

frequency, etc, patents, patents of other companies cited patentapplication.

Microsoft patent choke save big move?First time being put aside "Microsoft strongest" this topic, Microsoft two years ago, the newlyappointed CEO Nadella (Satya Nadella) really solid two.

Basically technology companies are playing such a trick is two or develop products based on apatent or patents technology, or together with two strokes, Microsoft is no exception. In January,the disclosure of which, since December 2003 launched its IP licensing program has signed 1200copies of a variety of technology licensing agreement. The recent wearable technology relatedagreements, licensed to the watch manufacturer Olio Devices.

Strategy Analytics analyst Raskind of this opinion: "Maybe Microsoft wants in the �eld oftechnology licensing for Google tight marking to revive past glory, which is probably the reason theytraded with Olio." And Pratap said,

Microsoft's independent study of 700 Microsoft patents arebased. He said: "According to our analysis, there are 49 patents and applications are derived fromthe acquisition Tangis, seven from Osterhout Group acquired, as well as an acquisition fromAntenova come."

After all, if Microsoft really wearable art hold back the big move, they plan what is it?

Technology forecasting and strategic consulting �rm Webbmedia group's founder Amy Weber (Amy Webb) said: "I do not want to wait until Christmas to see this wearable device Microsoft retail stores." Weber, and many people think that Microsoft's patent portfolio the main advantage of these shortterm market was more pro�table.

While Microsoft intellectual property in the stock unexpectedly, but the company is just anembedded product development in the sale of wearable, is the health of tracking bracelet Band 2.Of course, the mystery HoloLens will also be on sale this month.

In addition, Microsoft executives rarely talk about their huge stock of patents. In fact, Microsoftdeclined to comment.

Pratap thanked Microsoft's large development team, he said: "Every time we do this kind ofpatent analysis, will �nd that the industry leader is always the most patent applications" accordingto market research �rm statistics of Statista, Microsoft's R & D spending gradually increased since 2010, reaching $ 12 billion in 2015.

Pratap pointed out that Microsoft's patent wearable group before they wear product line hasalready begun to establish research and development, the �rst related patents from other research projects. Later, step by step, these innovations was only wearable positioned in the emerging markets. However, these tricks in the tech industry and manufacturing are fairly common.

Microsoft created its technology licensing business empireLike all successful technology innovators, Microsoft described as seasoned in developing

products and licensing technology licensing.

The �rst of those years �ghting against the face came from Microsoft MSDOS and Window operating system, these two patents that Microsoft is too broad in the United States and Europe are playing for a few years antitrust lawsuit. Of course there are cases of failure. Microsoft licensed its intellectual property to the digital music hardware development companies Zune, but any player who can not save this evening industry last fall or discontinued.

Weber said, regardless of the development of products or technology licensing each have their own advantages and disadvantages to technology licensing generally more moderate, lowrisk, sustainable income, but always found "do the wedding dress for her people," the horse. And higher product development costs, and the success or failure of the product had its own sheep. But the higher the potential return, the market will drive the success of the company success.

Although Weber said it did not

come into contact with "Deep Throat" source, but she still thinkMicrosoft can not just focus on the �eld of intellectual property, such gestures can not only �tnesstracker.

In starting it seems, is the most direct market B2B applications (just as the same as MSDOS),she put this mode is called "B2D", BusinesstoDoctor. Today, wearable health monitoring and diagnostics equipment growing, Microsoft should continue to develop, so that health class wearabledevices become smaller, cheaper, more perfect. But the acquisition of rival Apple is actively mobiledevice platforms and software application platform health class Market survey shows that nearly70 percent of doctors use medical application on the iPhone, which Apple is a good start.

Taking into account the promised new blockbuster earnings and Apple's strategy ofcontainment of these two factors, Nadella might be more carefully chosen patented technology topromote Microsoft's next innovation.


Story By: Wen Ash

–(22)–

February 26, 2016by Kareem Anderson

Microsoft is leading the wearable market…in patent applicationsWinBeta

Microsoft news and moreQuietly amassing an arsenal of wearable patent �lings

The battle for wearable supremacy is underway as companies such as Google, Apple, Fitbit, Nike, Under Armor, Levi’s, and many more take up arms and position themselves as the go-to business for connected technology. Even though Microsoft has its own wearables in the market with the Microsoft Band and Band 2 representing, it’s a relatively small outpost of renegades by comparison.

However, as a principal consultant from LexInnova reports, Microsoft is quietly amassing an arsenal of wearable patent �lings that could help level its presence on connected technology battle�eld. According to Rana Pratap, who spoke with IBD, Microsoft has issued 53 patent �lings directly related to wrist-worn devices, 13 more pertaining to eyewear and some additional 619 other wearable patents for various other means. Microsoft’s amount of �led patents for wearable associated technology ranks it as the worldwide leader in the category.

For comparison, runner-up Philips (PHG) sits inches behind Microsoft at 756 wearable-related patents �lings. Perhaps even more impressive is how Microsoft is outpacing its well-known competitors for �lings, with the maker of Android Wear and Google Glass holding on to the number three spot with

602 patent �lings. Unsurprisingly, similar to its R&D spend, Apple has chosen to keep its �lings rather limited for now, only marking 192 of them.

As for what Microsoft plans to do with its horde of patents (barring their approval) is unclear. Pratap and IBD speculate on several hypothesis ranging from licensing deals to business-to-business applications in the health monitoring and diagnostics industries.

Personally, I side with the former. As the company has shown, arguably callously with Windows Phone, it isn’t as much interested in producing hardware as it is on leveraging the strengths of its partners.

Perhaps, down the road, if Apple, Philips, Google ala Alphabet or some other business seize the market in ways Microsoft cannot, the

company will still have several cards to play, reminiscent of its Android patent war chest. As it stands today, Microsoft appears to be leveraging its Android patents to get itself on devices it would otherwise be locked out of, due to its failings in mobile. Microsoft’s abundance of wearable-related patents, right now, are probably just a rainy day measure with no real expectation of hardware for the masses.

Story By: Kareem Anderson

–(23)–


February 26, 2016by Jim Nash

Contd.

Microsoft, Not Apple Or Alphabet, Is Wearables King … In Patents

The 2014 debut of Apple’s Apple Watch and the release of the Google Glass computing eyewear the prior year stamped both tech giants as leading innovators of wearables.

Except that neither Apple (AAPL) nor Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL) is actually the leading innovator in wearables. Microsoft (MSFT) is.

At least, Microsoft is No. 1 worldwide when looking at patents for wearable-related technology, according to LexInnova, a patents-consulting �rm.

Microsoft has 757 wearables patent �lings, Rana Pratap, LexInnova’s principal consultant for technology, told IBD. At least 53 �lings are directly related to wrist devices. Another 13 are related to eyewear.

Netherlands-based Philips (PHG) is right behind in wearables-related intellectual property, with 756 wearables patents and patent applications. Alphabet, parent of Google, has 602 to place at No. 3, and the patent numbers drop o� precipitously from there, says LexInnova, which recently researched the topic.

Apple, for instance, has only 197 �lings, says LexInnova. Wearables startup Fitbit (FIT) has 192 �lings.

That is a good bit of patent activity, but then again, this market is already generating a good bit of revenue.

“We estimate the wearables market at $8.9 billion in wholesale device

revenue in 2015,” Cli� Raskind, an analyst for market research �rm Strategy Analytics, told IBD.

While some of Microsoft’s wearables portfolio is getting old — U.S. patents last no more than 20 years — Pratap says that, collectively, the patents remain strong. So, Microsoft’s wearables patent portfolio doesn’t just have quantity, but also quality.

LexInnova uses a proprietary algorithm involving about 50 factors, including patent age, the number of times a patent has been cited in other companies’ patent �lings, and court rejection of challenges to a patent, to judge the quality of patent portfolios, Pratap explains. Without giving details, he said Microsoft’s is strong.

What Are Microsoft’s Plans For Wearables?But the rami�cations of Microsoft’s wearables-patent activity are unclear. Satya Nadella, who was promoted to Microsoft CEO two years ago, is focused on companywide strategies

designed to recharge Microsoft’s growth.

Microsoft, like any company, could develop products based on its patents, license its patents or both. The company last month disclosed that it has signed 1,200 licensing agreements of all kinds since launching its IP licensing program in December 2003. One of the most recent agreements involved licensing wearables-related technology to Olio Devices, a niche watchmaker.

“Maybe Microsoft has been watching what Google’s doing (with technology licenses) and longingly remembering their big (operating system) licensing days,” said Raskind. “That could be where they are going with the Olio deal.”

Pratap says 700 of Microsoft’s wearables patents are based on Microsoft’s own research.

“According to our analysis, 49 patents and applications (were) acquired from Tangis,” he said. Microsoft acquired another seven from Osterhout Group and one

was acquired from Antenova.

So what, if anything, is Microsoft planning in wearables?

“I’m not necessarily watching for a Microsoft wearables pop-up retail store next Christmas,” said Amy Webb, founder of technology forecasting and strategy consulting �rm Webbmedia Group.

Webb and others say there are more lucrative, near-term markets for wearables for Microsoft to exploit with its portfolio. More on that in a moment…

Microsoft’s intellectual-property cache might surprise some. The company sells only one internally developed wearable product, the Band 2 �tness tracker bracelet, and executives say they will begin selling eyewear called HoloLens by April.

Plus, executives rarely discuss Microsoft’s large overall patent portfolio. Indeed, Microsoft declined to comment for this story.

“Whenever we do a patent analysis like this, we �nd that the biggest (technology) companies in a sector have the most patent �lings,” Pratap said, thanks to their often large research-and-development units.

R&D spending by Microsoft has been gradually rising since 2010, reaching $12 billion in 2015, according to market-statistics �rm Statista.

Pratap points out that Microsoft’s wearables portfolio began before it had a wearables product line. The earliest relevant patents resulted from other research projects. Over time, these

innovations were recognized as addressing the new wearables market.

This is common for tech and manufacturing companies, he says.

Microsoft Tech Licenses Built Its BusinessLike all successful technology innovators, Microsoft has much experience — good and bad — with developing products and licensing technology.

The company’s �rst hits were the MS-DOS and Window operating systems, both of which were licensed so extensively that Microsoft endured years of antitrust lawsuits in the U.S. and Europe.

There have been notable failures, too. Microsoft intellectual property was used to develop the �rm’s Zune digital music hardware. Microsoft also licensed Zune technology. Neither approach could save the entertainment player, which was discontinued last fall.

Webb says developing products and licensing technology each have advantages and disadvantages.

Licensing intellectual property typically brings modest, low-risk and ongoing revenue. A disadvantage of licensing is that it can put the licensee in the background when the technology succeeds in someone else’s product.

Development costs more compared with licensing and puts any failure in a company’s lap. But the potential revenue upside is far larger, and the company is tied

visibly to market success.

While Webb says she has not had any contact with Microsoft regarding wearables, she feels the company is not likely to focus its related intellectual property solely or even primarily on consumer goods like �tness trackers.

She said the most immediate market is for business-to-business applications (as was the case for MS-DOS), and what she calls “B-to-D” — business-to-doctor. Health-monitoring and diagnostic roles for wearables are growing today, and they should continue to expand as medical wearables become small, inexpensive and sophisticated, Webb said.

But rival Apple is making an aggressive bid to invade health care with mobile devices and HealthKit, the company’s software platform for health-related applications.

According to Black Book Market Research, almost 70% of physicians using medical apps do so on iPhones. That is a size-14 foot in the door for Apple.

Webb says the promise of signi�cant new revenue and the need to keep Apple at bay are likely to persuade Nadella to sift Microsoft’s patent portfolio for related innovations.

–(24)–


February 26, 2016by Jim Nash

Contd. from page 1

The 2014 debut of Apple’s Apple Watch and the release of the Google Glass computing eyewear the prior year stamped both tech giants as leading innovators of wearables.

Except that neither Apple (AAPL) nor Google parent Alphabet (GOOGL) is actually the leading innovator in wearables. Microsoft (MSFT) is.

At least, Microsoft is No. 1 worldwide when looking at patents for wearable-related technology, according to LexInnova, a patents-consulting �rm.

Microsoft has 757 wearables patent �lings, Rana Pratap, LexInnova’s principal consultant for technology, told IBD. At least 53 �lings are directly related to wrist devices. Another 13 are related to eyewear.

Netherlands-based Philips (PHG) is right behind in wearables-related intellectual property, with 756 wearables patents and patent applications. Alphabet, parent of Google, has 602 to place at No. 3, and the patent numbers drop o� precipitously from there, says LexInnova, which recently researched the topic.

Apple, for instance, has only 197 �lings, says LexInnova. Wearables startup Fitbit (FIT) has 192 �lings.

That is a good bit of patent activity, but then again, this market is already generating a good bit of revenue.

“We estimate the wearables market at $8.9 billion in wholesale device

revenue in 2015,” Cli� Raskind, an analyst for market research �rm Strategy Analytics, told IBD.

While some of Microsoft’s wearables portfolio is getting old — U.S. patents last no more than 20 years — Pratap says that, collectively, the patents remain strong. So, Microsoft’s wearables patent portfolio doesn’t just have quantity, but also quality.

LexInnova uses a proprietary algorithm involving about 50 factors, including patent age, the number of times a patent has been cited in other companies’ patent �lings, and court rejection of challenges to a patent, to judge the quality of patent portfolios, Pratap explains. Without giving details, he said Microsoft’s is strong.

What Are Microsoft’s Plans For Wearables?But the rami�cations of Microsoft’s wearables-patent activity are unclear. Satya Nadella, who was promoted to Microsoft CEO two years ago, is focused on companywide strategies

designed to recharge Microsoft’s growth.

Microsoft, like any company, could develop products based on its patents, license its patents or both. The company last month disclosed that it has signed 1,200 licensing agreements of all kinds since launching its IP licensing program in December 2003. One of the most recent agreements involved licensing wearables-related technology to Olio Devices, a niche watchmaker.

“Maybe Microsoft has been watching what Google’s doing (with technology licenses) and longingly remembering their big (operating system) licensing days,” said Raskind. “That could be where they are going with the Olio deal.”

Pratap says 700 of Microsoft’s wearables patents are based on Microsoft’s own research.

“According to our analysis, 49 patents and applications (were) acquired from Tangis,” he said. Microsoft acquired another seven from Osterhout Group and one

was acquired from Antenova.

So what, if anything, is Microsoft planning in wearables?

“I’m not necessarily watching for a Microsoft wearables pop-up retail store next Christmas,” said Amy Webb, founder of technology forecasting and strategy consulting �rm Webbmedia Group.

Webb and others say there are more lucrative, near-term markets for wearables for Microsoft to exploit with its portfolio. More on that in a moment…

Microsoft’s intellectual-property cache might surprise some. The company sells only one internally developed wearable product, the Band 2 �tness tracker bracelet, and executives say they will begin selling eyewear called HoloLens by April.

Plus, executives rarely discuss Microsoft’s large overall patent portfolio. Indeed, Microsoft declined to comment for this story.

“Whenever we do a patent analysis like this, we �nd that the biggest (technology) companies in a sector have the most patent �lings,” Pratap said, thanks to their often large research-and-development units.

R&D spending by Microsoft has been gradually rising since 2010, reaching $12 billion in 2015, according to market-statistics �rm Statista.

Pratap points out that Microsoft’s wearables portfolio began before it had a wearables product line. The earliest relevant patents resulted from other research projects. Over time, these

innovations were recognized as addressing the new wearables market.

This is common for tech and manufacturing companies, he says.

Microsoft Tech Licenses Built Its BusinessLike all successful technology innovators, Microsoft has much experience — good and bad — with developing products and licensing technology.

The company’s �rst hits were the MS-DOS and Window operating systems, both of which were licensed so extensively that Microsoft endured years of antitrust lawsuits in the U.S. and Europe.

There have been notable failures, too. Microsoft intellectual property was used to develop the �rm’s Zune digital music hardware. Microsoft also licensed Zune technology. Neither approach could save the entertainment player, which was discontinued last fall.

Webb says developing products and licensing technology each have advantages and disadvantages.

Licensing intellectual property typically brings modest, low-risk and ongoing revenue. A disadvantage of licensing is that it can put the licensee in the background when the technology succeeds in someone else’s product.

Development costs more compared with licensing and puts any failure in a company’s lap. But the potential revenue upside is far larger, and the company is tied

visibly to market success.

While Webb says she has not had any contact with Microsoft regarding wearables, she feels the company is not likely to focus its related intellectual property solely or even primarily on consumer goods like �tness trackers.

She said the most immediate market is for business-to-business applications (as was the case for MS-DOS), and what she calls “B-to-D” — business-to-doctor. Health-monitoring and diagnostic roles for wearables are growing today, and they should continue to expand as medical wearables become small, inexpensive and sophisticated, Webb said.

But rival Apple is making an aggressive bid to invade health care with mobile devices and HealthKit, the company’s software platform for health-related applications.

According to Black Book Market Research, almost 70% of physicians using medical apps do so on iPhones. That is a size-14 foot in the door for Apple.

Webb says the promise of signi�cant new revenue and the need to keep Apple at bay are likely to persuade Nadella to sift Microsoft’s patent portfolio for related innovations.

Story By: Jim Nash

–(25)–


by Mark Kerzner 5 February, 2016

Perspective: Everything is Hackable

Contd.

In the end of 2015 and beginning of 2016, legal publications were full of sensational cybersecurity headlines. They discussed information leaks and data breaches, and predicted that the breaches would keep getting worse. There were also mentions of Big Data going mainstream and of privacy issues which would arise as a result of this.

However, save for a few notable exceptions, these articles provided little help to the reader. They may be raising awareness of the long-standing problems, but I believe that what the readers actually want is practical and useful information which is not intended to scare but to help.

To achieve this, let us peel the cybersecurity onion layer by layer. First of all, let us separate privacy and security. While it is true that in a data breach both privacy and security may be compromised, privacy lies more in the world of regulations, while security is associated with technology and attacks.

More speci�cally, privacy makes sure that law-abiding, legitimate entities and persons have their “personally identi�able” information protected. This is achieved by creating a robust framework of privacy regulations.

Security, on the other hand, deals with attacks by criminals, often remote or unknown

entities, who can be masquerading as someone else. Thus, one can be completely OK on privacy (by observing all the rules and maintaining legal compliance), but still be completely insecure (for example, by using unpatched versions of software). In this article, we will deal primarily with security.

Personal vs Enterprise securityPrimarily, there are two, let’s call them, domains: work/enterprise security and personal security. Lawyers are human beings, and they need security, too. To paraphrase Shakespeare, “If you prick them, do they not bleed? If you tickle them, do they not laugh?” Let us deal with this second domain �rst, because after all it is simpler.

As I was writing this article, my lawyer friend called me: he was being cyber attacked. All his phones were ringing at once, and he was getting emails in Russian language — which he

does not understand. The phone calls all came from di�erent caller IDs, but the voice said the same thing, “Hello, world!”

This sounded like a classic “denial of service attack” on a human. In a heist that happened a couple years ago, a similar attack, but on a larger scale, was conducted while money was siphoned out from the victim’s bank account. What gave us hope though is that the attack, �rst of all, has already stopped. Moreover, it sounded very crude, and “Hello, world” is a standard programming application that you write in any new language.

I advised my friend to verify all his assets, not from his computer, but from some other device, that has not been under attack; at this point he decided to just go directly to his bank. He will also run possible virus scanners, potentially re-image his devices (there may be a keystroke logger), etc.

Generally, these measures help. Criminals must have a good ROI, or otherwise their crime does not pay. So, once you raise your level of defense higher, they go somewhere else

This is standard personal advice, but it demonstrates an important idea. In our personal life, we are quite paranoid about being hacked. We would get little solace in being JUST compliant, and would much rather be hackproof. We should try to adopt the same sense of paranoia in the work/enterprise domain.

Security Protection – Raising the Hacker BarBasically, everything is either already hacked, or can be hacked. According to Jeremiah Grossman, a very large proportion of all websites are hacked, but “there is little one can do about it. Malicious software is installed on these sites, and it tries to infect your computer when you visit the site. But if you write to the owners of the site to warn them about it, they will likely think that you are a hacker yourself.”

Jeremiah runs a protection racket (just kidding). He is the founder of WhiteHat Security, a company that �nds web site vulnerabilities and helps clients �x them. In his live hacking demo in Houston, Jeremiah provided an easy talisman: keep your defenses higher than the other guy, and hackers may hack someone else, not you. Cynical, but true.

Exactly what should one do? Matthew Nelson, an attorney with the security �rm Symantec corporate strategy department, gives sound advice. Here are the most important points.a) Don’t store the data you don’t need, and it won’t be stolen.b) Require secure passwords and automate this.c) Encrypt the data at rest and in transit.d) Break your network into segments, monitor who’s trying to get in and out, apply this to remote access as well.e) Use secure software development practices.

These and other pieces of advice will help you get o� the hook with the regulatory

authority (such as the FTC) in case of a breach, and they will also increase your real security overall.

However, they are not a panacea. As recent hacks of SONY showed, everything and anyone can be hacked. In fact, as Kim Zetter explains in her excellent book “Countdown to Zero Day,” there may be a number of hacks by the state actors that have already happened, and that may be waiting for years to be exploited. The real game is very complex. Take, for example, this question – If the NSA �nds a bug in Windows, should it quietly use this bug for exploits against their targets, or disclose it to Microsoft, making for a more secure software but allegedly less secure future? There is a very balance in the answer to this question. So what is one to do against this backdrop of everybody spying on everybody?

Before we turn to the answer, let us look at what lawyers and lawmakers as a group can do to assure a more secure software. There are a few things that can actually be done here, if only one listens to the voice of reason. Here they are (again, thanks to Jeremiah Grossman).

What the lawyers and lawmakers can do as a group:

a) Legislative measure are good for law abiding citizens, but are no protection against hackers, who usually reside outside of their jurisdiction. We should keep this in mind while enacting laws.

b) And yet, you can do something. First, require software makers to add some form of liability to end-user agreements, just like it works in all other markets.c) Make a form of Safe Harbor provisions applicable to security researchers. If they are treated like hackers, they will stop their community research.d) Let the government share breach information with the researchers, and let the companies responsibly share the breaches as well, not cover up on every breach other than credits card breaches which are currently required to be divulged by law in many states.

Security and Big DataIt is well-known that the security in Big Data is less mature than in the “small data” world, to say the least. One reason for this is that the security was added to Big Data tools (like Hadoop and NoSQL databases) as an afterthought. Initially, Hadoop clusters were for friendly groups of engineers working at Yahoo, who dealt with the data that was public anyway. Understandably, such data required very little protection.

Another reason for Big Data insecurity is the reliance on Hadoop being deployed within internal networks. This is a common fallacy; once the attacker is inside this network, all is open. As an experiment, we have put our internal hacker on attacking Hadoop, and he quickly found a number of vulnerabilities, collecting “hacker

bounty” in the form of t-shirts and free beer in the process.

The biggest reason for Big Data security however is human. Take a typical Oracle or Microsoft SQLServer administrator. He will likely have a few security courses under his belt, and customary security procedures in place. Take a NoSQL administrator. This will likely be the “devops” type of developer, responsible for both coding and administration, and not overly concerned about security. If anything, it is in his way, because it stops his software from working.

In a recent penetration test in California, much of the client company’s internal personnel information was tied to MongoDB (nice, popular NoSQL product), which was run without even a username and password protection. Once the attacker gains control over that, it is “game over” in hacker parlance.

The moral: one should pay special attention to securing the Big Data part of the organization’s software. Get a list of Big Data tools, have them raise a red �ag once you see them. It may start like the list below. For the rest, you can consult our open source, free book, Hadoop Illuminated.

Final piece of adviceAs discussed above, what is a lawyer to do when he or she is dealing with the security of a client corporation? In addition to the technical measures, the overall approach should be “everything is hackable.” Just as

in eDiscovery, the mantra is “Everything is discoverable,” so it is in the security world.

Have procedures on “what to do when this information leaks.” But do strike the right balance between security and convenience. Do not try to go for 100 percent in either direction. This may sound paranoid, but as Andy Grove of Intel said, “Only the paranoid survive.”

By following the approach delineated above, and by implementing the steps, we can at least rest assured that we did everything we could.

But there is one more thing to keep in mind. To paraphrase Shakespeare once again,

Give me your hands, if we be friends,

And Robin shall restore amends.

Robin, also known as Puck, is a mischievous spirit, sort of a hacker in the woods. By temporarily adopting his looks – that is, by thinking the way a hacker thinks – we can help improve security.

–(26)–

Featured (Author): Mark Kerzner (Chief Product Architect) February 5, 2016


Contd.






































–(27)–








































Story By: Mark Kerzner

–(28)–


by Jennifer Elias 5 February, 2016

Apple Patent Trolls Like VirnetX May Target Wearables Next

On Thursday, a U.S. court served Apple with a $625 million litiga-tion bill after patent troll VirnetX claimed the tech giant had infringed on patents used in its iMessage and FaceTime services.

Now, with the fastest-growing connected device and revenue, analysts say the wearable tech industry is looking awfully attrac-tive to patent trolls. The Apple AAPL +0.26% and Fitbit have already put up big numbers in the last quarter alone and at a com-pany-wide Apple meeting, Tim Cook reportedly said the Apple Watch sold better during the holiday season than the iPhone did back in 2007.

“The revenue from wearables is currently not at levels which translate to huge damages such as this verdict, but it is growing exponentially,” says Lexinnova‘s intellectual property guy Rahul Vijh. “Combine this with the relative ease of detecting infringement in consumer elec-tronics and you can expect to have a business environment most favorable to patent trolls within the next three years.”

Vijh says VirnetX owns a number of very high value patents in the internet security space that might �nd application in wearables as the win over Apple fuels more litigation. “For companies like VirnetX, the win provides a valida-tion of the patent troll business model and also provides them with a crucial data point on how much patents like the ones in this

case are worth in a litigation.”

He says the biggest damages will be driven by the wearables with the biggest revenues–and data. “At this point, wrist-worn health monitors continue to be the most favorable category of products,” Vijh says. “I expect patents that relate to real-time communica-tion and encryption of health and activity data to be the most valua-ble in the next �ve years. Thereaf-ter, patents that relate to health and activity sensors will become more valuable if any fall into the hands of patent trolls.”

But, he says, the multi-connected nature of wearables adds a layer of complexity that may actually work in manufacturers’ favor. “As products become more and more complex, patent trolls get less motivated to assert their patents. If a product requires extensive reverse engineering or technically complex discovery during a litigation, the legal costs stagger up to a point where the return on

investment decreases for trolls.”

But, he says pricey losses to patent trolls don’t fall on the courts but the company itself. “Courts have already been doing a very good job for the last �ve years of making litiga-tion tougher for patent trolls. However, tech companies often do not perform the necessary due diligence to really understand the risk from patent trolls. They should proactively conduct a free-dom-to-operate due diligence to steer away from known patents owned by known trolls before or shortly after the product is launched.”

Vijh advises a closer integra-tion of in-house counsel and engineering teams so that all stakeholders are fully aware of the risk and can actively avoid it. “If the risk cannot be avoid-ed, they should mitigate it through a licensing deal ahead

of the curve. An early licensing deal is almost always going to cost less than a litigation.”

Lexinnova data mines all patents �led and granted for wearable technology and ranks them by quality. Its most recent report on wearable patent strength found Microsoft and Alphabet (Google) are positioned to dominate it in the near future while Apple has had much lower numbers. The report showed that in 2014, Apple had the least amount of patents �led with 26–compared to Sam-sung which had 134 and Fitbit, Inc. with 112.

Nest got sued by Honeywell because it didn’t have patents in the thermostat space says Rana J Pratap, principal consultant of technology at Lexinnova. “They got patents in licensing agree-ments so that they could fend o� Honeywell and now they don’t have the intellectual property threat from them.”

Pratap says Fitbit, focusing more on hardware, has a higher number of patents where Jaw-bone has better quality of patents. Jawbone has been in litigation with Fitbit for design and trade secrets. “From an intel-lectual property standpoint, Microsoft will be a really strong player in the patent space. Even if its not in the product, they do have a strong patent portfolio that they could monetize through licensing and if they launch their product from an IT standpoint, they will be in a stronger footing.”

Contd.–(29)–

Featured: Rahul Vijh (Director - Client Solutions) & Rana J Pratap (Principal Consultant - Technology ) February 5, 2016

by Jennifer Elias 5 February, 2016

On Thursday, a U.S. court served Apple with a $625 million litiga-tion bill after patent troll VirnetX claimed the tech giant had infringed on patents used in its iMessage and FaceTime services.

Now, with the fastest-growing connected device and revenue, analysts say the wearable tech industry is looking awfully attrac-tive to patent trolls. The Apple AAPL +0.26% and Fitbit have already put up big numbers in the last quarter alone and at a com-pany-wide Apple meeting, Tim Cook reportedly said the Apple Watch sold better during the holiday season than the iPhone did back in 2007.

“The revenue from wearables is currently not at levels which translate to huge damages such as this verdict, but it is growing exponentially,” says Lexinnova‘s intellectual property guy Rahul Vijh. “Combine this with the relative ease of detecting infringement in consumer elec-tronics and you can expect to have a business environment most favorable to patent trolls within the next three years.”

Vijh says VirnetX owns a number of very high value patents in the internet security space that might �nd application in wearables as the win over Apple fuels more litigation. “For companies like VirnetX, the win provides a valida-tion of the patent troll business model and also provides them with a crucial data point on how much patents like the ones in this

case are worth in a litigation.”

He says the biggest damages will be driven by the wearables with the biggest revenues–and data. “At this point, wrist-worn health monitors continue to be the most favorable category of products,” Vijh says. “I expect patents that relate to real-time communica-tion and encryption of health and activity data to be the most valua-ble in the next �ve years. Thereaf-ter, patents that relate to health and activity sensors will become more valuable if any fall into the hands of patent trolls.”

But, he says, the multi-connected nature of wearables adds a layer of complexity that may actually work in manufacturers’ favor. “As products become more and more complex, patent trolls get less motivated to assert their patents. If a product requires extensive reverse engineering or technically complex discovery during a litigation, the legal costs stagger up to a point where the return on

investment decreases for trolls.”

But, he says pricey losses to patent trolls don’t fall on the courts but the company itself. “Courts have already been doing a very good job for the last �ve years of making litiga-tion tougher for patent trolls. However, tech companies often do not perform the necessary due diligence to really understand the risk from patent trolls. They should proactively conduct a free-dom-to-operate due diligence to steer away from known patents owned by known trolls before or shortly after the product is launched.”

Vijh advises a closer integra-tion of in-house counsel and engineering teams so that all stakeholders are fully aware of the risk and can actively avoid it. “If the risk cannot be avoid-ed, they should mitigate it through a licensing deal ahead

of the curve. An early licensing deal is almost always going to cost less than a litigation.”

Lexinnova data mines all patents �led and granted for wearable technology and ranks them by quality. Its most recent report on wearable patent strength found Microsoft and Alphabet (Google) are positioned to dominate it in the near future while Apple has had much lower numbers. The report showed that in 2014, Apple had the least amount of patents �led with 26–compared to Sam-sung which had 134 and Fitbit, Inc. with 112.

Nest got sued by Honeywell because it didn’t have patents in the thermostat space says Rana J Pratap, principal consultant of technology at Lexinnova. “They got patents in licensing agree-ments so that they could fend o� Honeywell and now they don’t have the intellectual property threat from them.”

Pratap says Fitbit, focusing more on hardware, has a higher number of patents where Jaw-bone has better quality of patents. Jawbone has been in litigation with Fitbit for design and trade secrets. “From an intel-lectual property standpoint, Microsoft will be a really strong player in the patent space. Even if its not in the product, they do have a strong patent portfolio that they could monetize through licensing and if they launch their product from an IT standpoint, they will be in a stronger footing.”

Story By: Jennifer Elias

–(30)–

Featured: Rahul Vijh (Director - Client Solutions) & Rana J Pratap (Principal Consultant - Technology ) February 5, 2016

January 22, 2016by Kaushal Jha

Contd.

How to Kick Privileged Information Out of Your Production Set

There has been much discussion around the prevention of inadvertent disclosure of privilege in litigation, but mistakes are still made. Take, for example, the case of Pilot v. Focused Retail Property I, LLC, No. 09-6879, 2011 WL 1238920 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2011).

In this case, counsel identified privileged documents; however, he overlooked the fact that his file also contained a duplicate set of these documents, with the privileged and unprivileged documents intermixed. Counsel’s assistant copied the set of privileged documents and produced it to the other party.

The magistrate judge held that the plaintiffs’ failure to adequately screen documents for production and to object to the use of privileged documents in a timely manner waived attorney-client privilege.

Technology, however, can simplify the entire process of identifying privilege, if used wisely. In this post, we will cover some of the tools you can use to identify privilege and avoid surprises.

Keyword SearchingKeyword searching is widely used for culling and filtering

documents for determining privilege and responsiveness. The technology has greatly improved over the years, and advanced features like Boolean connectors, proximity locators, wild card, fuzzy logic, and stemming can deliver the accurate and desired results.

However, keyword searches should be used cautiously, as they may return a great number of false hits. For example, some search terms that are generally used to locate privileged documents are “legal,” “attorney,” “lawyer,” “privilege,” and “counsel.” These search hits may capture documents containing confidential disclaimers in the footer of an email.

Metadata FilteringPrivileged information is most commonly found in email conversations between attorneys and their clients, or between other attorneys. Metadata filtering can be used to extract important information from an email by running searches on the

sender and recipient fields to find attorney and law firm domains. Additionally, author, file name, and subject field can be filtered to identify privilege. This is one of the most trusted methods to reduce the number of false hits and zero in on privilege in the data set.

Many search tools are capable of providing the entire list of email addresses and domains associated with the law firms at the very onset of the review. This exercise can even help to uncover the names of attorneys and law firms of which the client was not aware of during the litigation. One such tool is LexInsight PrivCheck, which analyzes sender and recipient data to identify potentially privileged documents.

Conceptual AnalyticsConceptual searches work on mathematical algorithms to retrieve documents with similar language use or concepts. The method uses advanced analytics ahead of simple keyword matching techniques to analyze the information and determine the conceptual meaning of the search query. Further, the process finds documents that are conceptually similar, even if the matching document doesn’t contain any of the same terms placed in query text. It helps in identifying and

withholding documents in the production set that are conceptually similar to privileged documents.

ClusteringClustering is an important tool that aids in automatic grouping of documents with similar conceptual content. In e-discovery, document clustering can provide a quick snapshot of the data and will help you visualize conceptual groups of documents. One advantage of these groupings is that it allows effective focusing of resources while performing privilege reviews. To locate privilege, you can look for cluster titles that may indicate privilege, such as the firm’s name, “counsel,” “confidential,” or “lawyer.”

Email ThreadingEmail threading has become relatively common in large discovery requests that contain massive data sets for review. The ability to view email threads plays an integral role in e-discovery because it connects related messages that might not otherwise appear together, thus reducing the number of documents to review. With email threading, reviewers are able to identify and review the latest email in a chain, which contains the entire conversation, rather than read each exchange individually. Email threading can be used as an effective quality control tool to identify

missing or inconsistent privilege calls.

A challenge with inclusive emails, however, is that all senders and recipients from the entire thread may not be visible in one place. Individual participants may have been dropped from the thread somewhere along the line and thus are not present in the final inclusive email.

To overcome this concern, metadata-based email threading may play an important role. A separate party field can be populated that identifies every unique email participant throughout the entire thread. This field can be used for search and performing privilege audits.

Flawless Privilege LogsWhen creating privilege logs, it is imperative to include only truly privileged documents. However, reviewers often err on the side of coding any communication between attorney and client as privileged. This increases the scope of determining privilege, and as a result, the privileged log is premised on a flawed understanding.

Lawyers need to understand that carelessness often leads to a waiver of privilege, which can cause severe detriment to a case. Having a sound framework of technology and best practices to identify and

capture potentially privileged information is essential to preventing inadvertent disclosures.

–(31)–

Featured (Author): Kaushal Jha (Manager - Litigation Solution)

January 22, 2016by Kaushal Jha

Contd. from page 1

There has been much discussion around the prevention of inadvertent disclosure of privilege in litigation, but mistakes are still made. Take, for example, the case of Pilot v. Focused Retail Property I, LLC, No. 09-6879, 2011 WL 1238920 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2011).

In this case, counsel identified privileged documents; however, he overlooked the fact that his file also contained a duplicate set of these documents, with the privileged and unprivileged documents intermixed. Counsel’s assistant copied the set of privileged documents and produced it to the other party.

The magistrate judge held that the plaintiffs’ failure to adequately screen documents for production and to object to the use of privileged documents in a timely manner waived attorney-client privilege.

Technology, however, can simplify the entire process of identifying privilege, if used wisely. In this post, we will cover some of the tools you can use to identify privilege and avoid surprises.

Keyword SearchingKeyword searching is widely used for culling and filtering

documents for determining privilege and responsiveness. The technology has greatly improved over the years, and advanced features like Boolean connectors, proximity locators, wild card, fuzzy logic, and stemming can deliver the accurate and desired results.

However, keyword searches should be used cautiously, as they may return a great number of false hits. For example, some search terms that are generally used to locate privileged documents are “legal,” “attorney,” “lawyer,” “privilege,” and “counsel.” These search hits may capture documents containing confidential disclaimers in the footer of an email.

Metadata FilteringPrivileged information is most commonly found in email conversations between attorneys and their clients, or between other attorneys. Metadata filtering can be used to extract important information from an email by running searches on the

sender and recipient fields to find attorney and law firm domains. Additionally, author, file name, and subject field can be filtered to identify privilege. This is one of the most trusted methods to reduce the number of false hits and zero in on privilege in the data set.

Many search tools are capable of providing the entire list of email addresses and domains associated with the law firms at the very onset of the review. This exercise can even help to uncover the names of attorneys and law firms of which the client was not aware of during the litigation. One such tool is LexInsight PrivCheck, which analyzes sender and recipient data to identify potentially privileged documents.

Conceptual AnalyticsConceptual searches work on mathematical algorithms to retrieve documents with similar language use or concepts. The method uses advanced analytics ahead of simple keyword matching techniques to analyze the information and determine the conceptual meaning of the search query. Further, the process finds documents that are conceptually similar, even if the matching document doesn’t contain any of the same terms placed in query text. It helps in identifying and

withholding documents in the production set that are conceptually similar to privileged documents.

ClusteringClustering is an important tool that aids in automatic grouping of documents with similar conceptual content. In e-discovery, document clustering can provide a quick snapshot of the data and will help you visualize conceptual groups of documents. One advantage of these groupings is that it allows effective focusing of resources while performing privilege reviews. To locate privilege, you can look for cluster titles that may indicate privilege, such as the firm’s name, “counsel,” “confidential,” or “lawyer.”

Email ThreadingEmail threading has become relatively common in large discovery requests that contain massive data sets for review. The ability to view email threads plays an integral role in e-discovery because it connects related messages that might not otherwise appear together, thus reducing the number of documents to review. With email threading, reviewers are able to identify and review the latest email in a chain, which contains the entire conversation, rather than read each exchange individually. Email threading can be used as an effective quality control tool to identify

missing or inconsistent privilege calls.

A challenge with inclusive emails, however, is that all senders and recipients from the entire thread may not be visible in one place. Individual participants may have been dropped from the thread somewhere along the line and thus are not present in the final inclusive email.

To overcome this concern, metadata-based email threading may play an important role. A separate party field can be populated that identifies every unique email participant throughout the entire thread. This field can be used for search and performing privilege audits.

Flawless Privilege LogsWhen creating privilege logs, it is imperative to include only truly privileged documents. However, reviewers often err on the side of coding any communication between attorney and client as privileged. This increases the scope of determining privilege, and as a result, the privileged log is premised on a flawed understanding.

Lawyers need to understand that carelessness often leads to a waiver of privilege, which can cause severe detriment to a case. Having a sound framework of technology and best practices to identify and

capture potentially privileged information is essential to preventing inadvertent disclosures.

Story By: Kaushal Jha

–(32)–


by Kristy Doukas January 07, 2016

Litigation Service Providers Share Their e-Discovery Resolutions

This week on the blog, we’re asking practitioners from across the e-discovery community to share their professional resolutions with other Relativity blog subscribers.

Earlier this week, we shared some New Year’s e-discovery resolutions from friends at a handful of law �rms. Today, we’re asking litigation service providers what their teams—and the industry as a whole—should resolve to accomplish in 2016.

Nasir Ali, manager, litigation solutions at LexInnova“With the rate at which data has grown over the past years, e-discovery has started to become a burdensome prospect for litigators and clients alike. This has resulted in e-discovery becoming increasingly process oriented, with our prime focus shifting to increasing e�ciency, lowering

costs, meeting production deadlines, and often bickering over proportionality. In the New Year, we as collective members of the e-discovery community should strive to shift the focus of e-discovery back to its true purpose—identifying facts and information that will reveal the truth in a matter. Even if we partially succeed in doing this, I think we’ll be able to make everyone more thankful for e-discovery’s existence.

Story By: Kristy Doukas

–(33)–

Featured: Nasir Ali (Manager - Litigation Solution)

By Mark Kerzner November 3, 2015

Contd.

Why Lawyers Should Care About Big DataThe term “Big Data” is so pervasive and so full of unknowns that it often sounds like “Boo! Data!” Along these lines, you �nd articles that talk about scary repercussions of Big Data for law, starting with the fact that much more data will be available for collection, and ending with industries being ruined in the wake of automation. On the other extreme, you �nd optimistic articles vaguely claiming that “Big Data will solve all our problems,” including Facebook outages and those that we even know not of. Very often these extremes are due to lack of clear understanding of what Big Data is, and how it relates to legal industry.

In this article I will de�ne exactly — and with examples — what is machine learning, what is arti�cial intelligence, and how they are relevant to the problems that lawyers face. This will allow the reader to judge for herself and to form an opinion on what they portend for the legal industry.

Machine learning“Machine learning” grew out of statistics. For example, if we take a Patent Application Backlog from the USPTO site and draw a straight line approximating the last year numbers, we can “predict” that by the end of 2015 the backlog will be around 530,000 to 550,000 applications.

be.” Secondly, I only went back for a year. If we took the prior year into account, we might have come up with a cyclical curve prediction, resulting in a di�erent possible outcome.

I have intentionally oversimpli�ed. Machine learning really deals with more complex data. For example, it may want to consider not just the month and the backlog size, but also the number of examiners. This would give us a three-dimensional chart, and a two-dimensional plane to approximate the trend. Or it may deal with four or more dimensions.

Finding the best approximation will then be harder than just �tting a line to a few points. It will require a computational algorithm. These algorithms are are grouped in the area called “mathematical optimization.” Thus, machine learning is a combination of advanced statistics and mathematical optimization. Nevertheless, the picture above will be always helpful.

A “yes” or “no” decisionNow let us look at an example of real machine learning. Say we are looking for a way to �lter out spam emails. We can start by collecting a good number of emails (they will be called a training set), and by manually marking those that are spam. Now we need to describe emails by using attributes, such as the length of the email, the presence and frequently used keywords indicating spam, place of origination, etc. Usually you �nd a few dozen of such characteristics, which can be expressed by a number. And then we need to �nd a “line of separation,” which is drawn in such a way that all spam emails will stay on one side of the line, and the good emails will be on the other.

This “simple” approach has a pretty complicated name: Support Vector Machines (SVM). Even experts need an

explanation of why it is called this way. The fact that we need to manually label all emails makes it “supervised” machine learning. The real algorithm is more complex, and the points are in a multi-dimensional space. (In real life spam detection is usually done with another algorithm, called Naive Bayes, but SVM provides a very good example and illustration).

As you can see, the idea is pretty simple though, and it works surprisingly well. We all know that the spam �lters today are pretty good. What is unexpected is that the same idea can be used to “predict” whether a given document will be privileged or no, and can form a basis for automated privilege review.

Privileged document is one that is protected from disclosure during eDiscovery. There are a few reasons for it to be privileged: communication between lawyer and client is the most common, but there are also others, such as doctor-patient and husband-wife privileges. Finding out whether a certain email is privileged is the same yes-or-no decision as spam-or-not classi�cation, and can be solved with the same machine learning called Support Vector Machines as above.

However, don’t get your hopes up too high as yet. Even if you were to have a huge training set — and spam �lters have a very large large ones, and still get things wrong sometimes — you can only promise a “high probability”. One can argue that humans make even more mistakes than this, but the fact remains that machine learning does not really “understand” the documents. It does not even imitate this. It is just using statistics to come up with a good probability estimate.

Converting documents to numbersThere are other methods of machine learning. For example a common request in legal document review is “give me more documents like this.” This is accomplished in the following way: all documents are “clustered,” that is, assigned to groups of similar documents. More documents are provided from the cluster to which the current one belongs

In order to measure document similarity,

their applications in law still have a long way to go.

Arti�cial IntelligenceArti�cial Intelligence, or AI, is broader than machine learning. It deals with logical reasoning and with rules that humans use. It tries to imitate what humans do, or to emulate it, while using perhaps a di�erent way of achieving it than humans.

Machine learning is usually considered part of AI, and AI may use some machine learning algorithms as part of a speci�c solution. A classical example of AI is IBM’s Deep Blue chess champion, and lately it is Dr. Watson, a system that won over human champions in playing the Jeopardy game. Dr. Watson combined the reading of all Wikipedia and search technology with the latest in Natural Language Processing and some machine learning. It is de�nitely AI, and this technology is now o�ered in the IBM cloud.

So, how does AI work? As one example let’s take grammar analysis. AI algorithms detect verbs and nouns, sentences and sentence structure, and can attempt to formulate the meaning of the text. One of the tools that the AI researchers use is a tool called “General Architecture for Text Engineering,” or GATE.

the transcripts of the Canadian parliament. The e�ort showed much promise but could not reach more than 80-85% accuracy. It exempli�ed “small data” thinking: using small but clean and veri�ed data to produce the algorithms.

Current leader in machine translation, Google, took the Big Data approach. They have also used the NLP, but they added statistical methods, and the training set of data was all world’s data. The result is well-known as https://translate.google.com/. It also shows another Big Data trait: it learns from the users’ critique of incorrect translations.

turns out, the most robust systems involve a combination of NLP and advanced machine learning. Google has recently published an article on how this is done. If you remember, machine learning algorithms which were used for text analysis ignored word order. Google researchers suggested an algorithms that would take the word order and the context into account. They called it “Paragraph Vectors” (see diagram) to indicate that the analysis is on the level of whole paragraphs. This approach is implemented in machine translation and it beats all other known algorithms.

What does this mean for the legal industry?

My goal in this article was to show exactly what machine learning is, and what its limitations are. Then we looked at AI, with its promises. Now let me formulate my conclusions.

Most of the current TAR (technology assisted review) in eDiscovery implements existing machine learning algorithms. This is helpful but limited, and to achieve the best possible results it helps to have the assistance of a data scientist.

Arti�cial Intelligence approach requires more work, and results in systems for very speci�c applications. However, it allows unprecedented precision, such as Google machine translation.

The most prominent part of AI applicable to legal problems is called text analytics. The greatest quality here comes from combining the NLP with statistical analysis, machine learning and using all data (Big Data) as training sets.

The amount of data available for eDiscovery and analysis continues to grow. One is hard pressed to do review without the use of the analytics tools, and will need these tools even more in the near future. Just as in a regular war, where the quality of one’s weapons is of extreme importance, so in

How accurate is such prediction? It depends on two factors. Firstly, it assumes that “what was is what will

we need to convert them to numbers. One of the ways of doing this is based on term frequency. Let us say a document of a hundred words has the word “contract” occurring ten times in it. The frequency of this term is 10%. This is pretty high, and we might think that the document is about contracts. However, we must also consider the overall frequency of the term “contract” in the complete collection of our documents. Say, for example, that the overall frequency of the word “contract” in our collection is only 5%. Then this document indeed stands out as a “contract-related.”

In the same way, we can compute these frequencies for all words in all documents. To make it sound more scienti�c, this calculation is called TF-IDF, or “term frequency – inverse document frequency”, and more complex frequency formulas are used.

The questions now becomes, how close is this to document understanding? I think that you will conclude with me that it is far. We are just computing some statistics, and declare documents similar if they have similar statistics.

This solution leaves statisticians and data scientists quite happy, because it is elegant and familiar to them, but lawyers may understandably remain distrustful. The solution does not explain why and how it arrived at the result. Even from the mathematical point of view it leaves something to be desired. If three words, “powerful,” “strong” and “Paris” occur in the same document, our method sees that as equally distant, although the �rst two are much closer together. Moreover, the order of words is completely lost. A nonsensical document with the same words that are all mixed up with look in every way the same as the original document. We will be back to these problems with machine learning later, but for now we can conclude that

Machine learning is based on statistics

Machine learning is an art, and can be applied di�erently to by di�erent people, leading to di�erent results

It is not based on linguistic information

but on word frequencies and other similar measures.

Training in machine learningBefore we proceed to arti�cial intelligence, we need to touch on “training.” In machine learning, “training” means labeling the data with desired classi�cation. For example, in the case of spam detection, it means assigning the category of “spam” or “not spam” to each of the emails which we use to “train” our system. Training also includes �nding the parameters which will best approximate our classi�cation. For example, in the case of spam, it would be that red line that separates the two groups of points.

In case of legal review, training may include selecting say 10% of the complete document set and allowing a group of human reviewers to label them as “relevant” or “not relevant”, perhaps “hot” or “not hot”, and so on. Then we “train” the model, and allow the computer to complete the classi�cation for the remaining 90% of the collection.

Apart from the machine learning considerations above, this training raises two questions:

The reviewers have seen just a small subset of all the documents, chosen perhaps at random. Should they see the complete selection, they might have labeled the training set di�erently.

The training set might not be representative of the complete document set. That means that the directions that the computer receives during this training will be incomplete and may result in incorrect classi�cation.

The promise of machine learningPlease don’t get me wrong. Mathematically the model is correct, and we can always tell the lawyers that “if you want a better quality, expressed as probability of correct classi�cation, choose a bigger training set.”

Machine learning is useful and it is the best o�ering that we have available. There are many more algorithms in machine learning than the examples I have shown. You can further improve it by having people knowledgeable in machine learning help you with your data analytics and with the use of the existing tools.

However, I hope that in the examples above you can also see its limitation. Everybody will agree that the computers have the potential of getting ever smarter, and that

In this screenshot GATE show the dates, people, organizations, locations and sentences that it has detected. You can immediately see that this approach aims at understanding, or at least imitating understanding, and is very promising. GATE is still based on rules, without an admixture of statistics.

Pure Natural Language Processing, or NLP, algorithms have their own problems. They require more work than machine learning, and they are usually targeted at very speci�c applications. Moreover, they are still fragile. Why? Let me give an example.

The early attempt at machine translation was undertaken by IBM in 2008. They have used a few million of veri�ed English/French parallel texts taken from

future legal battles the success will be strongly in�uenced by the analytics tools that the parties will use, and by their aptitude of applying these tools to the matter at hand.

–(34)–

Featured (Author): Mark Kerzner (Chief Product Architect)


Contd.

The term “Big Data” is so pervasive and so full of unknowns that it often sounds like “Boo! Data!” Along these lines, you �nd articles that talk about scary repercussions of Big Data for law, starting with the fact that much more data will be available for collection, and ending with industries being ruined in the wake of automation. On the other extreme, you �nd optimistic articles vaguely claiming that “Big Data will solve all our problems,” including Facebook outages and those that we even know not of. Very often these extremes are due to lack of clear understanding of what Big Data is, and how it relates to legal industry.












































2

1





–(35)–



The term “Big Data” is so pervasive and so full of unknowns that it often sounds like “Boo! Data!” Along these lines, you �nd articles that talk about scary repercussions of Big Data for law, starting with the fact that much more data will be available for collection, and ending with industries being ruined in the wake of automation. On the other extreme, you �nd optimistic articles vaguely claiming that “Big Data will solve all our problems,” including Facebook outages and those that we even know not of. Very often these extremes are due to lack of clear understanding of what Big Data is, and how it relates to legal industry.

















































–(36)–


OCTOBER 16, 2015by Kaushal Jha

Technological change may be a predator for privilege claims in litigation

The recent transformations in technology have troubled the corporations and in-house counsel as there has been a seismic change in the way people communicate across the globe. While technological change have always presented multitudinous challenges, corporations and in-house counsel are �nding it increasingly di�cult to defend and preserve privilege information. The rationale of privilege rule is to enable the client and its attorney communicate unequivocally, without an apprehension of losing such critical information to a third party. With the explosion of digital evidence, identifying and maintaining the privileged information has turned out to be a dissuading task for an in-house counsel.

There are several risks and pitfalls of technological change which are summarized below:

1. Social Media

Social networking allows instant access to a plethora of information, but can simultaneously become a gateway to the victimization of technology change. Social media has acquired the foot of a falcon as millions of people exchange information on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and blogs every day. These sites can be viewed as an interactive communication tool, but it also presents a myriad of risks and challenges. The social networking websites are becoming a growing hub of potential privileged and con�dential information which can a�ect the outcome of a litigation.

There are no rules that prohibit the use or posting of information on social networking websites, but a counsel should be well aware of the implications that it may bring on a case or a legal dispute.

2. Mobile Devices and Wireless Access

Mobile devices have become an integral part of an in-house counsel’s day to day practice which involves continued use of email, web browsers, calendars and contacts. These devices may contain privileged informatitn and there is always an associated risk of losing or inadvertently disclosing such con�dential information to third parties.

It has become a common habit these days to connect smartphones, tablet or laptops to public Wi-Fi. The chances of a wireless network getting hacked is higher which puts an in-house counsel at a risk of losing con�dential and critical data. The Data Breach QuickView report “Mid-Year 2015 Data Breach Trends” found that there were 1860 incidents reported during the �rst six months of 2015 exposing 228 million records. A single act of hacking exposed 78.8 million records.

3. Ubiquitous Cloud:

The cloud has emerged as a viable solution for an in-house counsel to store and manage information remotely. However, storing con�dential data on cloud entails risk, even if provided by well-established companies. An in-house counsel will have limited

ability to ensure that the data stored is safe and will not be accessed by third parties. There is always a risk of uncertainty of applicable jurisdiction as the data gets stored at multiple locations. Privileged information does not lose its character if it is shared via the cloud, but the exposure of such information may lead to waiver of a privilege claim.

4. BYOD:

BYOD (Bring your own device policies) policy was adapted to meet the emerging needs of businesses and provide around-the-clock access to business information. The security threat is continually evolving with the invasion of electronic devices, from laptops to smartphones and tablets, in the workplace. Privileged information can also be lost through injudicious manner, such as a family member accidentally entering a business email account or even swapping of mobile devices with friends and relatives.

Downloads and installation of apps by an in-house counsel for personal use may provide a gateway to unregulated third-party access to sensitive and con�dential information stored on the devices. There are numerous mobile apps that are pre-infected with malware and controlled by the hackers' with an intention to steal information from the mobile devices. As of 2014, Symantec has identi�ed more than 1 million apps classi�ed as malware.

While technological change have always presented multitudinous challenges, corporations and in-house counsel are �nding it increasingly di�cult to defend and preserveprivilege information.

5. Changing Face of Personal Communication:

Landline telephones, in-person meetings and mails were amongst the natural choices for an attorney for having con�dential discussions. With the technology reaching to new heights, instant messaging, emails, and other forms of digital communications are being extensively used by clients. Corporations are increasingly using and expecting their in-house counsel to use di�erent forms of communications without acknowledging and assessing the threats and risks these mediums pose at the present time.

6. Exponential Growth of Information:

The discussion around growth of information and data has been a talking point for quite some time. A study performed by IBM, revealed that 2.5 quintillion bytes of data were generated every day in 2012 and 90 percent of the data in the world was created in the last two years. The scope and location of potentially privileged materials have widened and the burden of sorting and �nding privileged information has become more complex.Corporations and in-house counsel don’t have to peep back to the dark ages and should continue to avail the bene�ts o�ered by changing technology after careful assessment of risks involved. The protection of privileged information is continuously waning and an in-house counsel must undertake remedial steps to evade the impact of technology.

• There should be reasonable policies for data compliance and privacy within a corporation. The in-house counsel representing a litigation must understand the ethical and professional

responsibilities and should avoid social networking sites for sharing any business communication. With extensive training of on handling and protection of con�dential information, unauthorized disclosures of con�dential privileged information can be averted.

• It is important to validate the security measures of a cloud service provider, rather than relying solely on assertions or contractual commitments. The corporations and in-house counsel should decide beforehand the nature of ESI that needs to be stored on cloud. Communications which are highly sensitive and contains legal advices should be excluded from the list and should on oSSnsite locations.

• The BYOD are clearly de�ned and outlines the rules and regulations for using personal devices at workplace. There must be a precondition for using personal devices at workplace such as minimum security requirement and company approved security software. The other remedial measures are:

• Restrictive rights to the users to access information that are classi�ed as sensitive.

• Proactive steps to track and monitor the use of mobile devices within the o�ce network.

• Establish Virtual Private Network (VPN) which serves as a protective wall and helps to eliminate the risk of losing con�dential data to any potential intruder.

• Timely backup and remote wipe operations should be used in case a device is lost, stolen or broken to avoid any disclosure of con�dential information.

• Predictive coding and sampling technologies are crucial for privilege

reviews. It is equally important to design a battery of searches to identify potentially privileged information in a review database. The in-house counsel must assess the underlying subject matter and apply logical thinking in deciding the approach for privilege review i.e. manual or predictive coding or a mix of both.

• Corporations should set up an on-site social network environment that streamlines communication among co-workers at workplace that provides a more secure and robust system to communicate with in-house counsel.

• The best practice is to place the notice “PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of any document that contains privileged information. Placing privilege designation at the bottom of the document may involve risk of getting it read by unintended recipients.

• Missing privileged information should not be viewed as a sin. Even the courts and opposing parties understand that privileged slips cannot be eliminated completely. It is always advisable to go for full disclosure with remedial measures such as claw-back agreements to prevent inadvertent disclosure and waiver of privilege.

October

–(37)–



OCTOBER 16, 2015by Kaushal Jha

The recent transformations in technology have troubled the corporations and in-house counsel as there has been a seismic change in the way people communicate across the globe. While technological change have always presented multitudinous challenges, corporations and in-house counsel are �nding it increasingly di�cult to defend and preserve privilege information. The rationale of privilege rule is to enable the client and its attorney communicate unequivocally, without an apprehension of losing such critical information to a third party. With the explosion of digital evidence, identifying and maintaining the privileged information has turned out to be a dissuading task for an in-house counsel.

There are several risks and pitfalls of technological change which are summarized below:

1. Social Media

Social networking allows instant access to a plethora of information, but can simultaneously become a gateway to the victimization of technology change. Social media has acquired the foot of a falcon as millions of people exchange information on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and blogs every day. These sites can be viewed as an interactive communication tool, but it also presents a myriad of risks and challenges. The social networking websites are becoming a growing hub of potential privileged and con�dential information which can a�ect the outcome of a litigation.

There are no rules that prohibit the use or posting of information on social networking websites, but a counsel should be well aware of the implications that it may bring on a case or a legal dispute.

2. Mobile Devices and Wireless Access

Mobile devices have become an integral part of an in-house counsel’s day to day practice which involves continued use of email, web browsers, calendars and contacts. These devices may contain privileged informatitn and there is always an associated risk of losing or inadvertently disclosing such con�dential information to third parties.

It has become a common habit these days to connect smartphones, tablet or laptops to public Wi-Fi. The chances of a wireless network getting hacked is higher which puts an in-house counsel at a risk of losing con�dential and critical data. The Data Breach QuickView report “Mid-Year 2015 Data Breach Trends” found that there were 1860 incidents reported during the �rst six months of 2015 exposing 228 million records. A single act of hacking exposed 78.8 million records.

3. Ubiquitous Cloud:

The cloud has emerged as a viable solution for an in-house counsel to store and manage information remotely. However, storing con�dential data on cloud entails risk, even if provided by well-established companies. An in-house counsel will have limited

ability to ensure that the data stored is safe and will not be accessed by third parties. There is always a risk of uncertainty of applicable jurisdiction as the data gets stored at multiple locations. Privileged information does not lose its character if it is shared via the cloud, but the exposure of such information may lead to waiver of a privilege claim.

4. BYOD:

BYOD (Bring your own device policies) policy was adapted to meet the emerging needs of businesses and provide around-the-clock access to business information. The security threat is continually evolving with the invasion of electronic devices, from laptops to smartphones and tablets, in the workplace. Privileged information can also be lost through injudicious manner, such as a family member accidentally entering a business email account or even swapping of mobile devices with friends and relatives.

Downloads and installation of apps by an in-house counsel for personal use may provide a gateway to unregulated third-party access to sensitive and con�dential information stored on the devices. There are numerous mobile apps that are pre-infected with malware and controlled by the hackers' with an intention to steal information from the mobile devices. As of 2014, Symantec has identi�ed more than 1 million apps classi�ed as malware.

5. Changing Face of Personal Communication:

Landline telephones, in-person meetings and mails were amongst the natural choices for an attorney for having con�dential discussions. With the technology reaching to new heights, instant messaging, emails, and other forms of digital communications are being extensively used by clients. Corporations are increasingly using and expecting their in-house counsel to use di�erent forms of communications without acknowledging and assessing the threats and risks these mediums pose at the present time.

6. Exponential Growth of Information:

The discussion around growth of information and data has been a talking point for quite some time. A study performed by IBM, revealed that 2.5 quintillion bytes of data were generated every day in 2012 and 90 percent of the data in the world was created in the last two years. The scope and location of potentially privileged materials have widened and the burden of sorting and �nding privileged information has become more complex.Corporations and in-house counsel don’t have to peep back to the dark ages and should continue to avail the bene�ts o�ered by changing technology after careful assessment of risks involved. The protection of privileged information is continuously waning and an in-house counsel must undertake remedial steps to evade the impact of technology.

• There should be reasonable policies for data compliance and privacy within a corporation. The in-house counsel representing a litigation must understand the ethical and professional

responsibilities and should avoid social networking sites for sharing any business communication. With extensive training of on handling and protection of con�dential information, unauthorized disclosures of con�dential privileged information can be averted.

• It is important to validate the security measures of a cloud service provider, rather than relying solely on assertions or contractual commitments. The corporations and in-house counsel should decide beforehand the nature of ESI that needs to be stored on cloud. Communications which are highly sensitive and contains legal advices should be excluded from the list and should on oSSnsite locations.

• The BYOD are clearly de�ned and outlines the rules and regulations for using personal devices at workplace. There must be a precondition for using personal devices at workplace such as minimum security requirement and company approved security software. The other remedial measures are:

• Restrictive rights to the users to access information that are classi�ed as sensitive.

• Proactive steps to track and monitor the use of mobile devices within the o�ce network.

• Establish Virtual Private Network (VPN) which serves as a protective wall and helps to eliminate the risk of losing con�dential data to any potential intruder.

• Timely backup and remote wipe operations should be used in case a device is lost, stolen or broken to avoid any disclosure of con�dential information.

• Predictive coding and sampling technologies are crucial for privilege

reviews. It is equally important to design a battery of searches to identify potentially privileged information in a review database. The in-house counsel must assess the underlying subject matter and apply logical thinking in deciding the approach for privilege review i.e. manual or predictive coding or a mix of both.

• Corporations should set up an on-site social network environment that streamlines communication among co-workers at workplace that provides a more secure and robust system to communicate with in-house counsel.

• The best practice is to place the notice “PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of any document that contains privileged information. Placing privilege designation at the bottom of the document may involve risk of getting it read by unintended recipients.

• Missing privileged information should not be viewed as a sin. Even the courts and opposing parties understand that privileged slips cannot be eliminated completely. It is always advisable to go for full disclosure with remedial measures such as claw-back agreements to prevent inadvertent disclosure and waiver of privilege.

October

–(38)–


by Nasir Ali 6 October , 2015

Privilege is a rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), which provides an exception to compelled testimony under discovery. The concept of privilege, primarily between an attorney and his client, has ingenerated within the U.S. legal system to protect client con�dentiality. This protection is often exercised by parties during legal proceedings and has been accorded recognition by courts on various occasions.

As law and discovery have evolved over the years, privileged information and the modes in which it exists has taken up diverse forms. From being stored in folders and �le cabinets, it now exists mostly as word documents, emails, and other forms of electronically stored information (ESI). And, litigators increasingly �nd themselves having to respond to subpoena requests for such ESI.

While protection of privilege is of utmost importance and the waiver of which can be of severe detriment to a case, it often gets ignored. This is because with the advent of e-discovery and growing volume of data, the costs associated with discovery have increased manifold. In order to alleviate these costs and meet strict production deadlines, litigants are often found forgoing privilege review, asserting broad claims, and skimping on necessary steps, which leads to extended motions, inadvertent disclosures and increased scrutiny.

This article covers a few practical steps which litigators and other stakeholders can keep in mind during the e-discovery process to ensure privileged information is protected while keeping cost and time considerations in check.

1. Create a Privilege Protection Checklist

Taking a proactive approach towards privilege protection is the �rst step in preventing any inordinate privilege waivers. One needs to be mindful of the various consideration involved in the process and create a checklist keeping various consideration in mind. The checklist should include:

(1) What all attorney created information you would be disclosing out of your own volition?

(2) Will any information regarding internal investigations (such as suspicious activity reports) be produced?

(3) Were any of the identi�ed custodians in consultation with internal or external counsel during the time period which is subject to discovery?

(4) From what sources legal advice could be received or re�ected (names of in house counsel, sta� in the GC’s o�ce, law �rms engaged, etc.)?

(5) What is the duration of litigation hold and the periods during which preservation notices were in e�ect?

(6) Was the company subject to any other litigation or investigation during the same period which could lead to an overlap in privileged communication?

(7) Are there any third parties involved, which may necessitate third party protective orders?

Having these questions answered will give you better insight into the matter and allow you to be prepared for the next phases in the process, particularly document review. It will also enable you to be better prepared for the pre-trial conference and help you negotiate more favorable terms for production.

2. Use Technology to Your Advantage

Ever since we added “electronic” before discovery, technology has begun to �ow an increasingly important role in the entire e-discovery process. Particularly in the document review phase, attorneys and e-discovery managers now have at their disposal a number of assistive tools, such as predictive coding, email threading, persistent highlights, boolean searching, that are baked into most mod ern review platforms.One must use these tools in

tandem with the information collected during the planning phase to minimize the burden of reviewing large sets of data and repetitive documents. All that is needed to achieve this is for you to be more “metadata aware.” For example, it is always a great practice to create search strings for various terms that could act as privilege triggers (such as attorney names, law �rms, investigation terms and general privileged terms). You can use these strings to identify potentially privileged documents before commencing the review and assign the results to reviewers who have a better eye for spotting privilege.

3. Conduct a Secondary Privilege Review

Technology is not perfect and neither are human reviewers, so it always advisable to conduct a second line review of all documents that contain privilege triggers but were not determined to be privileged during the review. You might also want to take a second look at documents that have been withheld to for being privileged or to which redactions have been applied to hide privileged information.

If the review is being handled by an outsourced vendor, make sure you provide them with as much information as possible to assist them in their review. Also, if you are working with a vendor for the �rst time, and of whose acumen you are not con�dent, it is best to instruct them to “err on the side of caution” while determining privilege. You can later delegate someone more trusted to take a secondary look and clear out documents which needn’t be withheld.

4. Minimize Cost and Time

Spent on Privilege Logs

Federal Rule 26(b)(5) requires the party claiming privilege to furnish details regarding the nature of documents being withheld, which is done through the creation of a privilege log. A privilege log contains information such as metadata related to the withheld documents and a brief description of the nature of privilege. It is because of these briefs, which are typically drafted manually, that the cost of privilege review escalates manifold. However, there are various ways in which one can mitigate these costs and also save time in the process.

If all parties agree to alternative modes of disclosure, one can consider furnishing information in the following formats:

Metadata Logs: Information can be produced in the form of an excel spreadsheet containing basic metadata details such as authors, creation dates, recipients, email subjects, �lenames, etc.

Category-Based Logs: Most e�ective on larger matters where a large number of withheld documents are similar in nature. Documents can be classi�ed into broad categories either based on keyword searches or by creating speci�c tags which can be applied during the review. A very good model for creating category based privilege logs can be found here.

Automated Logs: Many software providers have also begun to o�er inbuilt functionalities or add on solutions which are able to automate many, if not all aspects of the privilege log creation process. These can be considered if there is a substantial number of privileged documents which need to be withheld.

5. Make Sure a Clawback Agreement is in Place

In the worst-case scenario, when a privileged document slips through the cracks and gets produced inadvertently, having a clawback agreement in place can help in averting any adverse e�ects as a result of inadvertent disclosure.

While the provision to clawback in advertently produced documents exists

under Rule 502(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the provision is contingent on weather “reasonable steps” have been taken to prevent and rectify the disclosure. Litigants, however, also have the option to draw up their own customized clawback in accordance with their agreed upon preferences. The courts, too, have the power to provide protection against inadvertent privilege waivers under Rule 502(d).

Nasir Ali is manager of litigation solutions at LexInnova, a Houston-based legal services provider.

Practical steps litigators can take to ensure privileged information is protected while keep-ing cost and time considerations in check.

5 Tips to E�ectively Manage Privilege in E-Discovery

October 6, 2015

–(39)–

Featured (Author): Nasir Ali (Manager - Litigation Solution)

Privilege is a rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), which provides an exception to compelled testimony under discovery. The concept of privilege, primarily between an attorney and his client, has ingenerated within the U.S. legal system to protect client con�dentiality. This protection is often exercised by parties during legal proceedings and has been accorded recognition by courts on various occasions.

As law and discovery have evolved over the years, privileged information and the modes in which it exists has taken up diverse forms. From being stored in folders and �le cabinets, it now exists mostly as word documents, emails, and other forms of electronically stored information (ESI). And, litigators increasingly �nd themselves having to respond to subpoena requests for such ESI.

While protection of privilege is of utmost importance and the waiver of which can be of severe detriment to a case, it often gets ignored. This is because with the advent of e-discovery and growing volume of data, the costs associated with discovery have increased manifold. In order to alleviate these costs and meet strict production deadlines, litigants are often found forgoing privilege review, asserting broad claims, and skimping on necessary steps, which leads to extended motions, inadvertent disclosures and increased scrutiny.

This article covers a few practical steps which litigators and other stakeholders can keep in mind during the e-discovery process to ensure privileged information is protected while keeping cost and time considerations in check.

1. Create a Privilege Protection Checklist

Taking a proactive approach towards privilege protection is the �rst step in preventing any inordinate privilege waivers. One needs to be mindful of the various consideration involved in the process and create a checklist keeping various consideration in mind. The checklist should include:

(1) What all attorney created information you would be disclosing out of your own volition?

(2) Will any information regarding internal investigations (such as suspicious activity reports) be produced?

(3) Were any of the identi�ed custodians in consultation with internal or external counsel during the time period which is subject to discovery?

(4) From what sources legal advice could be received or re�ected (names of in house counsel, sta� in the GC’s o�ce, law �rms engaged, etc.)?

(5) What is the duration of litigation hold and the periods during which preservation notices were in e�ect?

(6) Was the company subject to any other litigation or investigation during the same period which could lead to an overlap in privileged communication?

(7) Are there any third parties involved, which may necessitate third party protective orders?

Having these questions answered will give you better insight into the matter and allow you to be prepared for the next phases in the process, particularly document review. It will also enable you to be better prepared for the pre-trial conference and help you negotiate more favorable terms for production.

2. Use Technology to Your Advantage

Ever since we added “electronic” before discovery, technology has begun to �ow an increasingly important role in the entire e-discovery process. Particularly in the document review phase, attorneys and e-discovery managers now have at their disposal a number of assistive tools, such as predictive coding, email threading, persistent highlights, boolean searching, that are baked into most mod ern review platforms.One must use these tools in

tandem with the information collected during the planning phase to minimize the burden of reviewing large sets of data and repetitive documents. All that is needed to achieve this is for you to be more “metadata aware.” For example, it is always a great practice to create search strings for various terms that could act as privilege triggers (such as attorney names, law �rms, investigation terms and general privileged terms). You can use these strings to identify potentially privileged documents before commencing the review and assign the results to reviewers who have a better eye for spotting privilege.

3. Conduct a Secondary Privilege Review

Technology is not perfect and neither are human reviewers, so it always advisable to conduct a second line review of all documents that contain privilege triggers but were not determined to be privileged during the review. You might also want to take a second look at documents that have been withheld to for being privileged or to which redactions have been applied to hide privileged information.

If the review is being handled by an outsourced vendor, make sure you provide them with as much information as possible to assist them in their review. Also, if you are working with a vendor for the �rst time, and of whose acumen you are not con�dent, it is best to instruct them to “err on the side of caution” while determining privilege. You can later delegate someone more trusted to take a secondary look and clear out documents which needn’t be withheld.

4. Minimize Cost and Time

Spent on Privilege Logs

Federal Rule 26(b)(5) requires the party claiming privilege to furnish details regarding the nature of documents being withheld, which is done through the creation of a privilege log. A privilege log contains information such as metadata related to the withheld documents and a brief description of the nature of privilege. It is because of these briefs, which are typically drafted manually, that the cost of privilege review escalates manifold. However, there are various ways in which one can mitigate these costs and also save time in the process.

If all parties agree to alternative modes of disclosure, one can consider furnishing information in the following formats:

Metadata Logs: Information can be produced in the form of an excel spreadsheet containing basic metadata details such as authors, creation dates, recipients, email subjects, �lenames, etc.

Category-Based Logs: Most e�ective on larger matters where a large number of withheld documents are similar in nature. Documents can be classi�ed into broad categories either based on keyword searches or by creating speci�c tags which can be applied during the review. A very good model for creating category based privilege logs can be found here.

Automated Logs: Many software providers have also begun to o�er inbuilt functionalities or add on solutions which are able to automate many, if not all aspects of the privilege log creation process. These can be considered if there is a substantial number of privileged documents which need to be withheld.

5. Make Sure a Clawback Agreement is in Place

In the worst-case scenario, when a privileged document slips through the cracks and gets produced inadvertently, having a clawback agreement in place can help in averting any adverse e�ects as a result of inadvertent disclosure.

While the provision to clawback in advertently produced documents exists

under Rule 502(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the provision is contingent on weather “reasonable steps” have been taken to prevent and rectify the disclosure. Litigants, however, also have the option to draw up their own customized clawback in accordance with their agreed upon preferences. The courts, too, have the power to provide protection against inadvertent privilege waivers under Rule 502(d).

Nasir Ali is manager of litigation solutions at LexInnova, a Houston-based legal services provider.

by Nasir Ali 6 October , 2015October 6, 2015

Story By: Nasir Ali

–(40)–

Featured (Author): Nasir Ali (Manager - Litigation Solution)

by Mark Kerzner September 9, 2015

contd.

Text Analytics, Big Data and LawBig Data and text analytics are all the rage in the �eld of law today. However, there is a dearth of precise de�nitions of these technologies and of the understanding of what they do. This is the void that the present article will try to �ll.

De�nitions such as “What is TAR (Technology Assisted Review)? It is something that helps a lawyer deal with documents” abound. However, this de�nition is so generic that it misses the very essence of TAR. Eyeglasses also help lawyer to deal with documents, yet they are not TAR, or at least not in the modern sense of the word.

Also popular is the following trend of thought: “Predictive analytics is used everywhere. We buy products based on it (Amazon recommendations), make friends (Facebook recommendations), and drive based on it (Google maps telling you that “you are on the best road”). And yet, with the abundance of TAR and predictive analytics o�erings from vendors, who is to be blamed for TAR is not being used more often? It must be the old-fashioned partners!”

This logic has an internal �aw though. These same “old-fashioned partners” ARE using Amazon, Facebook and

Photo by Joe The Goat Farmer (Flckr/Creative Commons)

Google recommendations. And if these same people are not jumping at predictive analytics o�erings from eDiscovery vendors, one may have a nagging suspicion that something is lacking in the o�erings of the “old-fashioned vendors.” And I believe I can point this out. But �rst let’s look at the available TAR technologies clearly, and with examples.

Text analytics – number-baseFirstly, there is numbers-based text analytics. Say, I’m looking for documSents about patents. Looking at each document in my set, I can count how many times the word “patent” occurs within them, if at all. The more the merrier: Documents that contain the word “patent” more often are probably more related to patents than other documents. So, by counting the number of times that “patent” is mentioned, I can group similar documents.

But there are also other words in these documents! No problem, we will compute the ratio of our target word “patent” to other words. But

there are also other documents! For this, we will look at how many times the word “patent” occurs in other documents. If it occurs too much, then our document is nothing special, and should not be singled out as one talking about patent.

Thus, I can have a graph that will group together documents with similar word frequency and similar frequency of occurring in other documents. Here is an example of such a technique applied to �nd important words in newspaper articles.

This is number-based text analytics. Is it helpful? Probably yes. Does it really understand what the documents are talking about? Everybody will agree, far from it.

Based on the very simple number crunching described

above, the computer can do the “show more documents like this” trick. Will it be extremely precise, or will it likely contain enough noise to become “not so useful” to put it mildly? Very likely so.

Beside this palpable need for improvement, the previous few paragraphs might have scared away anyone who is not into “data science” or “number crunching.” As the lawyers like to joke, “I went into law so that I would NOT have to do math.” Let’s respect this feeling.

Text analytics grammar-based There is also a mature branch of text analytics dealing with the analysis of the language, or text-engineering. One example of this approach is GATE, a ten-year old project from She�eld University, which has become one of the standard tools for text analytics. GATE stands for General Architecture for Text Engineering.

GATE can reasonably break down the text into paragraphs, sentences, nouns and verbs. It can also �nd people, companies, organizations and places mentioned in the documents. How does it do this? For example, the �rst rule for sentence detection is “It must end with a period (dot), and there must be a word starting with an uppercase letter after it.” As you can imagine, this rule will

indeed catch perhaps 80% of the phrases found in documents overall. Then there will be some exceptions, and some additional rules to catch them. The detection will never be 100 percent perfect (even human reviewers may disagree on how to break up sentences), but it can get pretty accurate.t

For people, companies, places, etc., GATE uses the concept of gazetteers. Gazetteer is simply a list of all possible values: For example, all counties in the U.S., if we are trying to detect the county court in a legal proceeding.

The screenshot below shows GATE

con�gured to analyze US Court of Appeals documents. It can detect judges, courts, counsel, etc. The tag on the right is convenient: once you click on acheckbox which says “Date,” you will see all dates in all possible formats that GATE has detected in the given document.

Well, how do you use this display? You could read the document yourself! The answer is that technologies like GATE help you extract meaningful

entities, adding them to the existing and places extracted from it are shown as smaller �lled circles. If you can further act on this chart by drilling in or zooming out, it can be used as a very e�ective investigation tool.

Big DataThe sheer number of documents may present a problem by itself. Let’s do a simple back-of-the-napkin calculation. A million documents may take a million seconds to process.

This assumes that a document takes a second — not too unlikely if you think of opening this document with Microsoft Word. If you add optical character recognition (OCR) required for scanned documents, one second may even seem low.

A million seconds is about 20,000 minutes, or about 40 hours. Now, that’s too much. However, if I had a

hundred computers to do the work, it would be only about 20 min. That is reasonable. And this is where Big Data comes in.

Big Data deals with too much data, more data than can be stored and processed on one computer. It is capable of connecting billions of people around the globe and of navigating billions of cars through millions of places. But for our purposes, we can simply think of it as a glue that combines our hundred computers into a cluster and lets them work together on solving one problem. This glue is called Hadoop. A more modern version, which uses in-memory computing and is much faster, is called Spark. Such feats as processing a million documents in twenty minutes on a hundred machines are commonplace there.

So what’s missing?We started by stating that the lack of acceptance of predictive analytics by law �rm partners perhaps shouldn’t be blamed on them. We showed you how text analytics works, whether based on numbers or on language parsing. We also showed what role Big Data plays there.

Of course, this is a simpli�cation. All the techniques, examples of which are given above, analyze not one word but thousands of words in a collection of documents. They compute complicated statistics, use machine learning algorithms to �nd the best matches, and use multiple rules for text analysis.

Two thing are missing however. First, the litigation industry is not known for innovation. The common predictive analytics techniques only use the most simple common algorithms. Therefore, they fall short in their usability. This can be �xed. Google, one of the leaders in text analysis, came up with an algorithm that takes into account not only individual words, but also their position in the sentence. This algorithm is much more precise (think of Google Translate), and it is called “paragraph vectors.”

“Instead of judges ordering the use of predictive analytics and law �rms sometimes balking at that, lawyers will �ock to these tools through their own volition

It has been published and even implemented in the open source world. Therefore, more depth of analysis is required. This would allow us to bridge the simple �rst results and the demands of the legal analysis. It may bring our analytics to the level of usefulness required by law �rm partners and by everybody else involved.

Secondly, the exposition above

shows that the tools will require maintenance and the per-case con�guration. Here, I believe that the research work done by the Memex team at DARPA (of which I am a member) is pointing in the right direction. For example, their memex-gate is an extension of the standard GATE tool for text engineering, but con�gured for court documents. This does require constant updates from them (actually, crawlers that do the updates are included in the open source code that the Memex team publishes). But, as is well known to all Russians, “One cannot even get a �sh out of a pond without some labor involved.”

With these improvements, perhaps we may see the reverse situation: Instead of judges ordering the use of predictive analytics and law �rms sometimes balking at that, lawyers will �ock to these tools through their own volition, because these tools will provide them with a tangible advantage. Compare this to the Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) to work movement.

–(41)–


by Mark Kerzner September 9, 2015

contd.

Big Data and text analytics are all the rage in the �eld of law today. However, there is a dearth of precise de�nitions of these technologies and of the understanding of what they do. This is the void that the present article will try to �ll.


































–(42)–



September 9, 2015by Mark Kerzner

Big Data and text analytics are all the rage in the �eld of law today. However, there is a dearth of precise de�nitions of these technologies and of the understanding of what they do. This is the void that the present article will try to �ll.


































–(43)–


by Jennifer Lonoff SchiffSS August 31, 2015

8 tips for managing outsourced projects“As if managing complex technolo-gy projects wasn’t di�cult enough, outsourcing can create numerous stresses you likely have not experi-enced when using a primarily or exclusively internal team,” says Tom Fountain, CTO of Pneuron, which provides distributed enterprise solutions. “Interestingly, it’s not the technical competence of the outsourcer that normally derails projects. Instead, it’s a lack of communications and common understanding of simply what’s important and how to meld diverse organizations into a cohe-sive unit.”So how can project leaders keep outsourced, especially internation-ally outsourced, projects on track and on budget? Following are eight helpful suggestions.

Help the outsourced party (or parties) understand your busi-ness and goals“This does not entail endless training sessions and lengthy document exchange [but] sharing the important elements of your business, your customers, your business processes, your people,” says Fountain. “The more of these elements you can share e�ectively, the more likely your outsourcer will be aligned [with your business goals and be able to] create real value.”

Make sure everyone’s working from the same playbook“Always create a playbook that contains step-by-step instructions,” says Kapil Bagai, manager, LexIn-nova Technologies, a legal outsourcing and technology consulting �rm. “This facilitates

consistent application of your requirements. A well designed and robust work�ow builds accu-racy and promotes overall e�ec-tiveness,” he points out. Further-more, it’s important to “provide the team with necessary back-ground information and material that could help them in further streamlining and managing the project.”Also, when working with team members whose �rst language may not be English, be cognizant of the fact that that written requirements may not be enough. So, if possible, supplement written communication with wireframes, annotated diagrams and other visual aids to clearly convey your needs. The more speci�c you are, the better the chance of getting the deliverable you are looking for.

In addition, “your processes should involve a tracking mechanism [metrics] for measuring the team's productivity and quality,” says Bagai.

Be mindful, and respectful, of everyone’s time zone – and use them to your advantage“When the team working on a project is in di�erent time zones, it is good to know the time di�er-ence and schedule meetings that suit both parties,” says Bagai. “Being concerned about your team's time builds a level of trust and motivates them to work harder.”You can also use large time zone di�erences to your advantage. For example, if you have outsourced part of your project to India, which is 9.5 hours ahead of the East Coast of the United States, you can send them something at the end of your business day, they can work on it while you are sleeping and have it back to you at the start of the next business day.

Make sure everyone’s working o� the same �lesEnable globally distributed teams to collaborate as if in the same

o�ce by ensuring that there is a single authoritative version of a �le,” suggests Randy Chou, CEO, Panzura, a global cloud storage provider. “This allows teams to work on the same �le at the same time without overwriting work of others. This is especially impor-tant for applications like design, software development, architec-tural, and engineering where document integrity issues can cause major delays [and] incur signi�cant additional expense.”

Have good project manage-ment software – and make sure all parties use it"Provide your team with a collab-orative software solution that allows them to work together,” says Bassem Handy, vice presi-dent of Enterprise Strategy, Procore, a provider of construc-tion project management soft-ware. “With immediate access to project data, team members can spend less time tracking down information and more time being productive. Project team mem-bers and stakeholders alike will have visibility into the project, keeping everyone on the same page.” “We have a team of 20 develop-ers overseas, and all of our devel-opment work is conducted from this o�ce,” explains Mark Tuch-scherer, cofounder and president, Geeks Chicago. “The primary piece of advice I would o�er [in regard to managing outsourced or far-�ung projects] is to have excellent management software,” he says. “We use JIRA because we are an agile company, but some-thing like Asana would work as well. Everything should run through the software; never use email to manage project”

Sync up regularly“Agree in advance to be kept updat-ed on a �xed schedule,” says Chok Leang Ooi, CEO, AgilityIO, a global consulting �rm helping entrepre-neurs. “Sync ups can be done on a daily or weekly basis, but be disci-plined about keeping to the agreed upon timing, especially if your outsourced team is in another time zone.”“E�ective communication, especial-ly with new or o�-site employees, is key to creating a more e�cient, productive and pro�table project,” says Handy. “Whether you are using Google Chat or Slack, keeping all project communication in one central location will increase accountability and allow all team members to communicate in real time.”

Hold regular video chats“Face-to-face interaction (even if done electronically) is vitally impor-tant to developing a solid relation-ship and rapport with your team that ensures alignment on objec-tives and milestones,” says Patrick Rice, CEO, Lumidatum, a predictive analytics company. “Tools like Skype, Slack, WhatsApp and Google Hang-outs make it so easy to stay connected and interact with team-mates,” wherever they are.

Treat outsourced member of your team with respect“Take some time to get to [know] the members of [the] team,” advises Fountain. “Whether through a video conference or other means, put faces to names and get to know what makes them tick. Bottom line: treat your outsourced team like the partner you expect them to be” and they will be.

Project management and outsourcing experts share their advice on how to effectively manage far-flung or internationally outsourced projects.

contd.–(44)–

Featured: Kapil Bagai (Manager - Litigation Solution)

by Jennifer Lonoff SchiffSS August 31, 2015

“As if managing complex technolo-gy projects wasn’t di�cult enough, outsourcing can create numerous stresses you likely have not experi-enced when using a primarily or exclusively internal team,” says Tom Fountain, CTO of Pneuron, which provides distributed enterprise solutions. “Interestingly, it’s not the technical competence of the outsourcer that normally derails projects. Instead, it’s a lack of communications and common understanding of simply what’s important and how to meld diverse organizations into a cohe-sive unit.”So how can project leaders keep outsourced, especially internation-ally outsourced, projects on track and on budget? Following are eight helpful suggestions.

Help the outsourced party (or parties) understand your busi-ness and goals“This does not entail endless training sessions and lengthy document exchange [but] sharing the important elements of your business, your customers, your business processes, your people,” says Fountain. “The more of these elements you can share e�ectively, the more likely your outsourcer will be aligned [with your business goals and be able to] create real value.”

Make sure everyone’s working from the same playbook“Always create a playbook that contains step-by-step instructions,” says Kapil Bagai, manager, LexIn-nova Technologies, a legal outsourcing and technology consulting �rm. “This facilitates

consistent application of your requirements. A well designed and robust work�ow builds accu-racy and promotes overall e�ec-tiveness,” he points out. Further-more, it’s important to “provide the team with necessary back-ground information and material that could help them in further streamlining and managing the project.”Also, when working with team members whose �rst language may not be English, be cognizant of the fact that that written requirements may not be enough. So, if possible, supplement written communication with wireframes, annotated diagrams and other visual aids to clearly convey your needs. The more speci�c you are, the better the chance of getting the deliverable you are looking for.

In addition, “your processes should involve a tracking mechanism [metrics] for measuring the team's productivity and quality,” says Bagai.

Be mindful, and respectful, of everyone’s time zone – and use them to your advantage“When the team working on a project is in di�erent time zones, it is good to know the time di�er-ence and schedule meetings that suit both parties,” says Bagai. “Being concerned about your team's time builds a level of trust and motivates them to work harder.”You can also use large time zone di�erences to your advantage. For example, if you have outsourced part of your project to India, which is 9.5 hours ahead of the East Coast of the United States, you can send them something at the end of your business day, they can work on it while you are sleeping and have it back to you at the start of the next business day.

Make sure everyone’s working o� the same �lesEnable globally distributed teams to collaborate as if in the same

o�ce by ensuring that there is a single authoritative version of a �le,” suggests Randy Chou, CEO, Panzura, a global cloud storage provider. “This allows teams to work on the same �le at the same time without overwriting work of others. This is especially impor-tant for applications like design, software development, architec-tural, and engineering where document integrity issues can cause major delays [and] incur signi�cant additional expense.”

Have good project manage-ment software – and make sure all parties use it"Provide your team with a collab-orative software solution that allows them to work together,” says Bassem Handy, vice presi-dent of Enterprise Strategy, Procore, a provider of construc-tion project management soft-ware. “With immediate access to project data, team members can spend less time tracking down information and more time being productive. Project team mem-bers and stakeholders alike will have visibility into the project, keeping everyone on the same page.” “We have a team of 20 develop-ers overseas, and all of our devel-opment work is conducted from this o�ce,” explains Mark Tuch-scherer, cofounder and president, Geeks Chicago. “The primary piece of advice I would o�er [in regard to managing outsourced or far-�ung projects] is to have excellent management software,” he says. “We use JIRA because we are an agile company, but some-thing like Asana would work as well. Everything should run through the software; never use email to manage project”

Sync up regularly“Agree in advance to be kept updat-ed on a �xed schedule,” says Chok Leang Ooi, CEO, AgilityIO, a global consulting �rm helping entrepre-neurs. “Sync ups can be done on a daily or weekly basis, but be disci-plined about keeping to the agreed upon timing, especially if your outsourced team is in another time zone.”“E�ective communication, especial-ly with new or o�-site employees, is key to creating a more e�cient, productive and pro�table project,” says Handy. “Whether you are using Google Chat or Slack, keeping all project communication in one central location will increase accountability and allow all team members to communicate in real time.”

Hold regular video chats“Face-to-face interaction (even if done electronically) is vitally impor-tant to developing a solid relation-ship and rapport with your team that ensures alignment on objec-tives and milestones,” says Patrick Rice, CEO, Lumidatum, a predictive analytics company. “Tools like Skype, Slack, WhatsApp and Google Hang-outs make it so easy to stay connected and interact with team-mates,” wherever they are.

Treat outsourced member of your team with respect“Take some time to get to [know] the members of [the] team,” advises Fountain. “Whether through a video conference or other means, put faces to names and get to know what makes them tick. Bottom line: treat your outsourced team like the partner you expect them to be” and they will be.

Story By: Jennifer Lonoff SchiffSS

–(45)–

Featured: Kapil Bagai (Manager - Litigation Solution)

by Mark Kerzner 5 August, 2015

eDiscovery and the Internet of ThingsThe “Internet of Things” (IoT) means that there are, and will be, many more sources of information available for eDiscovery than ever before, and that the volume of this information is growing at an accelerating rate.

This can play out both for advantage and disadvantage in litigation, so the questions of requesting, preserving, reviewing and producing the information are best to be addressed soon. We suggest a balanced approach to gradual implementation for all stages of eDiscovery in the IoT.

IntroductionEvery week there are a few new write-ups on eDiscovery and the IoT. However, by far the majority misses the important understanding of what Big Data is. They take it as “just a lot of data, more than a lawyer can read,” and proceed to describe the standard text analytics techniques, often promoting their particular brand of text analytics.

The key word searches and statistical analysis of

text has been around since the late nineties. What makes Big Data special are the new, technical challenges, often abbreviated as 3V: Volume, Velocity, Variety.

The June 2015 McKinsey report, “The Internet of Things: Mapping the Value beyond the Hype” pegs the total IoT economic potential at $11 trillion in the coming decade, while the Cisco “Internet of Everything” puts it at $19 trillion.

Thus, there is no doubt that the IoT revolution is bound to happen. There is also little doubt that it will present lawyers and technology experts with signi�cant challenges, but also opportunities. The IoT is de�nitely a technology problem, as opposed to societal or political. Thus, the means for addressing it will also be technological.

Luckily, technology giants such as Google, Facebook, Yahoo and Twitter have faced technology challenges for a long time, and have developed and made available a number of solutions. These solutions are largely open source, resulting in robust, dynamic software with low total cost of ownership (TOC). The �rst and foremost of these solutions is Hadoop, which provides scalable storage and computational capability on clusters of commodity servers.

Along with Hadoop, there are also Flume and Sqoop for data collection; Pig and Hive for processing; HBase, Cassandra and other NoSQL solutions for generating

quick response to queries against a large dataset, Spark and Storm for real-time processing, and many more.

What you need to know about Big Data technologyAnyone who wants to understand the challenges of Big Data will do well by familiarizing oneself with Hadoop and its ecosystem. Otherwise, one’s understanding will be too vague and nebulous. There are a number of resources available on the internet which one can reference to improve their understanding of Hadoop including my free book, Hadoop Illuminated.

Implementation tips (and reference architecture) for eDiscovery and IoTI have put together a reference architecture, represented by the diagram below. It is based on my extensive experience of teaching and practicing Big Data, as well as on the feedback from my Hadoop-based solution for eDiscovery.

In brief, you use a data collection tool that deposits the data in HDFS, the storage component of Hadoop. The tool could be Flume for batch collections or Storm/Kafka for more real-time components. One must also consider Apache Ni�, a product of 8

years of NSA development; it solves many IoT load-balancing challenges and gives an HTML5-based interface for con�guring data streams in real time.

Don’t make a mistake of putting everything into a NoSQL solution like HBase or Cassandra. This will make your solution in�exible, fast for some queries but extremely slow for others, which you have not anticipated. Afterwards, when you have seen the typical queries, you will be able to add a NoSQL component. Do it by replicating, not replacing the data.

For processing, use Hadoop or Spark. This will make sure that you can process any amount of data (think terabytes) in any required time frame (think hours for Hadoop, minutes for Spark).Analytics use the most

advanced tools, such as GATE, which stands for “General Architecture for Text Engineering”. We, for example, are applying our work at DARPA, to extract meaning, not just keywords or statistics, from documents.

Review, just as well, should be built on Big Data NoSQL tools, which will guarantee super-fast performance on any volume of data or any number of reviewers. You can consult my book “HBase Design Patterns,” which works out many of the issues important for eDiscovery.

Finally, and this has been said many times, security should not be an afterthought, but should be a part of your development from the beginning. “Hadoop Security” can be said to be the �rst and only de�nitive book on the subject right now.

Contd..

August 5, 2015

–(46)–


by Mark Kerzner 5 August, 2015

The “Internet of Things” (IoT) means that there are, and will be, many more sources of information available for eDiscovery than ever before, and that the volume of this information is growing at an accelerating rate.

This can play out both for advantage and disadvantage in litigation, so the questions of requesting, preserving, reviewing and producing the information are best to be addressed soon. We suggest a balanced approach to gradual implementation for all stages of eDiscovery in the IoT.

IntroductionEvery week there are a few new write-ups on eDiscovery and the IoT. However, by far the majority misses the important understanding of what Big Data is. They take it as “just a lot of data, more than a lawyer can read,” and proceed to describe the standard text analytics techniques, often promoting their particular brand of text analytics.

The key word searches and statistical analysis of

text has been around since the late nineties. What makes Big Data special are the new, technical challenges, often abbreviated as 3V: Volume, Velocity, Variety.

The June 2015 McKinsey report, “The Internet of Things: Mapping the Value beyond the Hype” pegs the total IoT economic potential at $11 trillion in the coming decade, while the Cisco “Internet of Everything” puts it at $19 trillion.

Thus, there is no doubt that the IoT revolution is bound to happen. There is also little doubt that it will present lawyers and technology experts with signi�cant challenges, but also opportunities. The IoT is de�nitely a technology problem, as opposed to societal or political. Thus, the means for addressing it will also be technological.

Luckily, technology giants such as Google, Facebook, Yahoo and Twitter have faced technology challenges for a long time, and have developed and made available a number of solutions. These solutions are largely open source, resulting in robust, dynamic software with low total cost of ownership (TOC). The �rst and foremost of these solutions is Hadoop, which provides scalable storage and computational capability on clusters of commodity servers.

Along with Hadoop, there are also Flume and Sqoop for data collection; Pig and Hive for processing; HBase, Cassandra and other NoSQL solutions for generating

quick response to queries against a large dataset, Spark and Storm for real-time processing, and many more.

What you need to know about Big Data technologyAnyone who wants to understand the challenges of Big Data will do well by familiarizing oneself with Hadoop and its ecosystem. Otherwise, one’s understanding will be too vague and nebulous. There are a number of resources available on the internet which one can reference to improve their understanding of Hadoop including my free book, Hadoop Illuminated.

Implementation tips (and reference architecture) for eDiscovery and IoTI have put together a reference architecture, represented by the diagram below. It is based on my extensive experience of teaching and practicing Big Data, as well as on the feedback from my Hadoop-based solution for eDiscovery.

In brief, you use a data collection tool that deposits the data in HDFS, the storage component of Hadoop. The tool could be Flume for batch collections or Storm/Kafka for more real-time components. One must also consider Apache Ni�, a product of 8

years of NSA development; it solves many IoT load-balancing challenges and gives an HTML5-based interface for con�guring data streams in real time.

Don’t make a mistake of putting everything into a NoSQL solution like HBase or Cassandra. This will make your solution in�exible, fast for some queries but extremely slow for others, which you have not anticipated. Afterwards, when you have seen the typical queries, you will be able to add a NoSQL component. Do it by replicating, not replacing the data.

For processing, use Hadoop or Spark. This will make sure that you can process any amount of data (think terabytes) in any required time frame (think hours for Hadoop, minutes for Spark).Analytics use the most

advanced tools, such as GATE, which stands for “General Architecture for Text Engineering”. We, for example, are applying our work at DARPA, to extract meaning, not just keywords or statistics, from documents.

Review, just as well, should be built on Big Data NoSQL tools, which will guarantee super-fast performance on any volume of data or any number of reviewers. You can consult my book “HBase Design Patterns,” which works out many of the issues important for eDiscovery.

Finally, and this has been said many times, security should not be an afterthought, but should be a part of your development from the beginning. “Hadoop Security” can be said to be the �rst and only de�nitive book on the subject right now.

August 5, 2015

Story By: Mark Kerzner–(47)–


For the purpose of this study, a set of patents that are integral to IoT were extracted by LexInnova based on comprehensive research. The patent portfolio was then been divided into three broad categories – Networking, Computing and Infrastructure, and then further subdivided as depicted above.

Top IoT Invention Owners by Number of U.S. FilingsTop IoT Invention Owners, by total U.S. patent filings are presented in the following chart:

This fragmented distribution reflects the “fact that there is a

by Lisa Brownlee July 30, 2015

Internet Of Things: IoT Tech Landscape And Rankings - New Report

What tech defines the Internet of Things (IoT) and who are the major IoT tech players? These are the topics of countless articles and images attempting to qualitatively define and illustrate the IoT phenomenon. One of the most important aspects of any tech analysis is analyzing which players have quantifiably demonstrated their tech leadership in the relevant technological fields. From an asset analysis perspective, the most commonly-used indicia of tech leadership has historically been, and remains, patent portfolio analytics.

Who better to provide this patent portfolio insight into IoT tech leadership but the only organization with its work in the IoT analysis field vetted by the World Intellectual Property Organization, IP and technology consulting firm LexInnova. LexInnova prepared a special update of its WIPO-published IoT report for this article.

IoT innovation and patent protection of it are fast-moving: “Innovation in IoT continues to grow exponentially, which has led to the growth in patent filings in this space to overshadow other technologies. This combined with a fragmented patent holding pattern can lead to significant patent licensing activity in IoT related technologies in the near future,” says Abhi Verma, Managing Director of LexInnova.

IoT tech ”Incumbents”Below is the key matrix of U.S. IoT patent filings, depicting which companies scored highest and in which metrics quadrant.

Top IoT Invention Owners by Number of U.S. Filings Source: LexInnova

The metrics in this report are based on granted U.S. patents and inventions for which U.S. patent applications are pending. These patents include those invented in-house and those acquired by assignment from third parties. The Portfolio Filing Score on the X axis is a metric of the total number of issued and pending IoT patents by company. The Portfolio Quality Score on the Y axis is based on LexInnova’s proprietary algorithm that adapts the methodology set forth by Mark A. Lemley, Kimberly A. Moore, John R. Allison, and R. Derek Trunkey in their research paper, “Valuable Patents” to calculate the quality of inventions. This algorithm also takes into account tech coverage, citation score, claim broadness, and the ratio of patents granted and applied-for patents.The scores within each of these individual categories can be found in the Appendix of the report.

The IoT Tech Incumbents are “players which have a good patent portfolio in terms of quality but miss out on the filing front.” There is currently no company in the Leadership quadrant (green), due to lower numbers of patent filings relative to some of the higher-filing players (shown in the orange quadrant). However, according to LexInnova’s analysis, Nokia, Somfy, Microsoft and Intel are poised to

move into the Leadership quadrant if they increase the number of high-quality patent filings. Also, Ericsson, Qualcomm and LG have the highest number of filings relative to the group, but relatively lower portfolio scores, which kept them from qualifying for placement in the “Leaders” quadrant under the analytics used in this report.

What is the IoT? The tech taxonomyThe below graph depicts the IoT tech landscape as defined by LexInnova for its report.

Contd.

huge scope of cross patent licensing, mergers and acquisitions and collaborations in the field of IoT.”Where’s Google?Google has spent $5.5 billion acquiring IoT intensive companies like Nest, Boston Dynamics, Waze and Dropcam. Last year Google also concluded a patent licensing deal with LG, effective until 2023. These patents describe technologies including data processing, wireless and mobile security patents for various connected devices such as wearables, tablets, and for the Internet of Things, specifically for connected devices in smart homes.

Even Google’s IoT intense acquisitions and dealmaking activity, plus its own portfolio of admittedly IoT-intensive inventions in the digital imaging field, did not place Google in the rankings in this report due to an insufficiency in the total number of filings in the selected categories. Google has obviously been far from inactive in the IoT space. Just this week Google announced an IoT research partnership with Carnegie-Mellon University. The mission of the partnership is, according to Carnegie-Mellon’s CMU News, “to fulfill the IoT’s promise by creating a complete system of interoperable IoT technology and finding answers to key research questions, such as how to preserve privacy and ensure security in an increasingly sensor-filled environment.” How the results of this partnership will impact Google’s IoT invention ranking under the analytics used in this report remains

to be seen.

Where’s ZTE?According to LexInnova’s research, ZTE has a total of 898 patents in the IoT space, however only 93 of these are in the U.S. (as mentioned, the report only analyzes patents filed in the US). Since the least number of patents in the representative set considered for the report was 140 (held by Verizon), ZTE does not figure in the report.

Patent landscape analysis is one of numerous ways tech portfolios can be evaluated. Given the hype and opaque data often used when discussing the IoT in general and its tech prospects in particular, patent landscape analysis provides a reliable, time-tested means of quantifying tech portfolios.

–(48)–

Featured: Abhi Verma (Founder and Managing Director)

For the purpose of this study, a set of patents that are integral to IoT were extracted by LexInnova based on comprehensive research. The patent portfolio was then been divided into three broad categories – Networking, Computing and Infrastructure, and then further subdivided as depicted above.

Top IoT Invention Owners by Number of U.S. FilingsTop IoT Invention Owners, by total U.S. patent filings are presented in the following chart:

This fragmented distribution reflects the “fact that there is a

by Lisa Brownlee July 30, 2015

What tech defines the Internet of Things (IoT) and who are the major IoT tech players? These are the topics of countless articles and images attempting to qualitatively define and illustrate the IoT phenomenon. One of the most important aspects of any tech analysis is analyzing which players have quantifiably demonstrated their tech leadership in the relevant technological fields. From an asset analysis perspective, the most commonly-used indicia of tech leadership has historically been, and remains, patent portfolio analytics.

Who better to provide this patent portfolio insight into IoT tech leadership but the only organization with its work in the IoT analysis field vetted by the World Intellectual Property Organization, IP and technology consulting firm LexInnova. LexInnova prepared a special update of its WIPO-published IoT report for this article.

IoT innovation and patent protection of it are fast-moving: “Innovation in IoT continues to grow exponentially, which has led to the growth in patent filings in this space to overshadow other technologies. This combined with a fragmented patent holding pattern can lead to significant patent licensing activity in IoT related technologies in the near future,” says Abhi Verma, Managing Director of LexInnova.

IoT tech ”Incumbents”Below is the key matrix of U.S. IoT patent filings, depicting which companies scored highest and in which metrics quadrant.

Top IoT invention owners, by total U.S. patent filings.

The metrics in this report are based on granted U.S. patents and inventions for which U.S. patent applications are pending. These patents include those invented in-house and those acquired by assignment from third parties. The Portfolio Filing Score on the X axis is a metric of the total number of issued and pending IoT patents by company. The Portfolio Quality Score on the Y axis is based on LexInnova’s proprietary algorithm that adapts the methodology set forth by Mark A. Lemley, Kimberly A. Moore, John R. Allison, and R. Derek Trunkey in their research paper, “Valuable Patents” to calculate the quality of inventions. This algorithm also takes into account tech coverage, citation score, claim broadness, and the ratio of patents granted and applied-for patents.The scores within each of these individual categories can be found in the Appendix of the report.

The IoT Tech Incumbents are “players which have a good patent portfolio in terms of quality but miss out on the filing front.” There is currently no company in the Leadership quadrant (green), due to lower numbers of patent filings relative to some of the higher-filing players (shown in the orange quadrant). However, according to LexInnova’s analysis, Nokia, Somfy, Microsoft and Intel are poised to

move into the Leadership quadrant if they increase the number of high-quality patent filings. Also, Ericsson, Qualcomm and LG have the highest number of filings relative to the group, but relatively lower portfolio scores, which kept them from qualifying for placement in the “Leaders” quadrant under the analytics used in this report.

What is the IoT? The tech taxonomyThe below graph depicts the IoT tech landscape as defined by LexInnova for its report.

huge scope of cross patent licensing, mergers and acquisitions and collaborations in the field of IoT.”Where’s Google?Google has spent $5.5 billion acquiring IoT intensive companies like Nest, Boston Dynamics, Waze and Dropcam. Last year Google also concluded a patent licensing deal with LG, effective until 2023. These patents describe technologies including data processing, wireless and mobile security patents for various connected devices such as wearables, tablets, and for the Internet of Things, specifically for connected devices in smart homes.

Even Google’s IoT intense acquisitions and dealmaking activity, plus its own portfolio of admittedly IoT-intensive inventions in the digital imaging field, did not place Google in the rankings in this report due to an insufficiency in the total number of filings in the selected categories. Google has obviously been far from inactive in the IoT space. Just this week Google announced an IoT research partnership with Carnegie-Mellon University. The mission of the partnership is, according to Carnegie-Mellon’s CMU News, “to fulfill the IoT’s promise by creating a complete system of interoperable IoT technology and finding answers to key research questions, such as how to preserve privacy and ensure security in an increasingly sensor-filled environment.” How the results of this partnership will impact Google’s IoT invention ranking under the analytics used in this report remains

to be seen.

Where’s ZTE?According to LexInnova’s research, ZTE has a total of 898 patents in the IoT space, however only 93 of these are in the U.S. (as mentioned, the report only analyzes patents filed in the US). Since the least number of patents in the representative set considered for the report was 140 (held by Verizon), ZTE does not figure in the report.

Patent landscape analysis is one of numerous ways tech portfolios can be evaluated. Given the hype and opaque data often used when discussing the IoT in general and its tech prospects in particular, patent landscape analysis provides a reliable, time-tested means of quantifying tech portfolios.

–(49)–

Story By: Lisa Brownlee


by Geoff Gordon Jul 28, 2015

Qualcomm is �rst to announce wireless charging for metal smartphones and more [VIDEO]

This year has been one of growth for wireless charging. From standards consolidation and expanded availability, to new device launches and the promise of a wire-free world, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. (“Qualcomm”) has been at the center of innovation. After more than eight years actively working to bring �exible wireless charging mainstream, we have once again attained a signi�cant milestone for Qualcomm WiPower technology; Qualcomm has cracked the code to enable wireless charging through devices made of metal, including smartphones and tablets.

Up until now, smartphones with a metal design could not be charged wirelessly—the know-how simply did not exist. Today, Qualcomm becomes the �rst company to announce a solution.

This solution is based upon the existing WiPower technology reference design, already Rezence-certi�ed by the Alliance for Wireless Power (A4WP). It is engineered to maintain all the bene�ts of a resonant-based system, namely, the ability to simultaneously charge multiple devices with varying power requirements on the

same charging area. Resonant technology also allows devices to charge at a distance from the charging area, making it less cumbersome to include wireless charging in furniture and automobiles, among other areas.

While WiPower and other solutions available from A4WP are unique in their ability to tolerate metal-based objects such as keys and coins within the charging area, until now this same characteristic did not apply when wrapping a device in metal. With the Qualcomm solution, we expect the adoption of wireless charging to accelerate by removing a previous barrier for phone designers.

This innovation further strengthens the Qualcomm WiPower technology portfolio. In fact, a recent report by LexInnova, a patent analysis �rm, shows Qualcomm Incorporated possesses the strongest patent portfolio amongst the companies evaluated. According to its LexScore framework, “Qualcomm is the only assignee lying in the green region of the chart and it

can be assumed that it dominates the domain in terms of intellectual property.”

Existing WiPower licensees have access to the full suite of WiPower reference designs, including the schematics needed to enable wireless charging in metal backed smartphones and other devices.

The roster of WiPower licensees is growing. These include key consumer electronics accessory manufacturers, Tier One and Tier Two automotive suppliers, furniture manufacturers, and more. These licensees are in addition to Qualcomm Incorporated’s 3G/4G patent licensees that may have access to patents that apply to WiPower technology through their subscriber unit license agreements

Wireless charging for metal devices: another innovation enabled by Qualcomm. Learn more about Qualcomm WiPower here.

–(50)–

Featured (Report): Wireless Power

Story By: Geoff Gordon

July

by Mark Kerzner July 21, 2015

As data volumes rise, we’re seeing more businesses gravitate towards Hadoop. An open-source software framework, Hadoop helps businesses store and process massive amounts of data without purchasing expensive hardware.

How are businesses using Hadoop? In all sorts of ways. I’ve seen examples of businesses using Hadoop to find ideal prospects, prevent hardware failure, identify warning signs of security breaches, and so much more.

The fact is, this data explosion offers a huge opportunity. But, businesses can only use it as a competitive advantage if they can somehow capture and store this data. Since traditional databases aren’t built for “Big Data”, Hadoop provides the best means of accomplishing this goal.

But, while Hadoop offers numerous advantages, it comes with its fair share of challenges and hurdles. If your business plans on adopting Hadoop, you must first understand these challenges, and how to address each one. What are they? Here are the 5 biggest hurdles to Hadoop adoption:

1. Hadoop integration and managementWill Hadoop replace your existing database? While some products offer this option, Hadoop is most often used in tandem with existing systems.

What does this mean? It means that you must integrate Hadoop with your existing systems–a challenge that is more difficult and time consuming for large Hadoop clusters. It also means you must devote more resources into

managing your Hadoop infrastructure.

What can you do about this? The answer depends on your database and systems you have in place. Fortunately, most database vendors do have tools and instructions for Hadoop integration. For those looking to manage their Hadoop infrastructure, this article lists some great Hadoop-related tools (and more) that might come in handy.

2. Finding good talentWhat is the biggest hurdle to Hadoop adoption? According to the survey mentioned above, it’s the lack of Hadoop skills. Why are businesses having so much trouble finding qualified Big Data talent? As explained below, picking up Hadoop skills is more difficult than learning other technical skills.

So, how can you bridge this skills gap? Besides the obvious answer of bringing in new talent, you have a couple of options:

1. Create your own skills: Training from within your business is cost-effective, and offers another valuable benefit: The trainees already know your business. This approach results in employees who know your business and Hadoop. To

help you get started along this path, here’s a great list of free Hadoop training courses.

2. Find the right software: Big Data and Hadoop are still growing fields, but we’re starting to see products emerge that bridge the skills gap for you. For instance, a product like Splice Machine merges the traditional RDBMS with Hadoop–removing the skills gap entirely. Expect to see more offerings crop up that aim to ease the transition.

3. Hadoop distribution confusionWhile Hadoop is free and open source software, some vendors have developed their own distributions. They do this to add new capabilities, improve the code base, and offer support. The problem: With a growing number of distributions, differentiating between all of them presents a challenge. How do you know which one to pick?

So, how do you know which option works best for your business? Rather than get into all of the details in this article, here are a couple of articles that compare different distributions in detail.1. Comparing the Top Hadoop Distributions2. How the 9 Leading Hadoop Distributions Stack Up

4. Data accessibilityHadoop provides the framework to store and process data, but that data provides little value for the average business analyst (or business user) unless they can easily transform it into

mrc 5 hurdles to Hadoop adoption (and how to fix them)

meaningful management information. The problem is, Hadoop was designed as a batch-processing tool. On its own, it offers little in the way of analytics for end users.

What can you do about this? Fortunately, we’re seeing advancements in this area. Hadoop analytics is a growing area. Traditional BI vendors are adding Hadoop support to their offerings, and new Hadoop analytic vendors are cropping up. Expect this trend to increase in the coming years.

contd.–(51)–


by Mark Kerzner July 21, 2015

As data volumes rise, we’re seeing more businesses gravitate towards Hadoop. An open-source software framework, Hadoop helps businesses store and process massive amounts of data without purchasing expensive hardware.

How are businesses using Hadoop? In all sorts of ways. I’ve seen examples of businesses using Hadoop to find ideal prospects, prevent hardware failure, identify warning signs of security breaches, and so much more.

The fact is, this data explosion offers a huge opportunity. But, businesses can only use it as a competitive advantage if they can somehow capture and store this data. Since traditional databases aren’t built for “Big Data”, Hadoop provides the best means of accomplishing this goal.

But, while Hadoop offers numerous advantages, it comes with its fair share of challenges and hurdles. If your business plans on adopting Hadoop, you must first understand these challenges, and how to address each one. What are they? Here are the 5 biggest hurdles to Hadoop adoption:

1. Hadoop integration and managementWill Hadoop replace your existing database? While some products offer this option, Hadoop is most often used in tandem with existing systems.

What does this mean? It means that you must integrate Hadoop with your existing systems–a challenge that is more difficult and time consuming for large Hadoop clusters. It also means you must devote more resources into

managing your Hadoop infrastructure.

What can you do about this? The answer depends on your database and systems you have in place. Fortunately, most database vendors do have tools and instructions for Hadoop integration. For those looking to manage their Hadoop infrastructure, this article lists some great Hadoop-related tools (and more) that might come in handy.

2. Finding good talentWhat is the biggest hurdle to Hadoop adoption? According to the survey mentioned above, it’s the lack of Hadoop skills. Why are businesses having so much trouble finding qualified Big Data talent? As explained below, picking up Hadoop skills is more difficult than learning other technical skills.

So, how can you bridge this skills gap? Besides the obvious answer of bringing in new talent, you have a couple of options:

1. Create your own skills: Training from within your business is cost-effective, and offers another valuable benefit: The trainees already know your business. This approach results in employees who know your business and Hadoop. To

help you get started along this path, here’s a great list of free Hadoop training courses.

2. Find the right software: Big Data and Hadoop are still growing fields, but we’re starting to see products emerge that bridge the skills gap for you. For instance, a product like Splice Machine merges the traditional RDBMS with Hadoop–removing the skills gap entirely. Expect to see more offerings crop up that aim to ease the transition.

3. Hadoop distribution confusionWhile Hadoop is free and open source software, some vendors have developed their own distributions. They do this to add new capabilities, improve the code base, and offer support. The problem: With a growing number of distributions, differentiating between all of them presents a challenge. How do you know which one to pick?

So, how do you know which option works best for your business? Rather than get into all of the details in this article, here are a couple of articles that compare different distributions in detail.1. Comparing the Top Hadoop Distributions2. How the 9 Leading Hadoop Distributions Stack Up

4. Data accessibilityHadoop provides the framework to store and process data, but that data provides little value for the average business analyst (or business user) unless they can easily transform it into

meaningful management information. The problem is, Hadoop was designed as a batch-processing tool. On its own, it offers little in the way of analytics for end users.

What can you do about this? Fortunately, we’re seeing advancements in this area. Hadoop analytics is a growing area. Traditional BI vendors are adding Hadoop support to their offerings, and new Hadoop analytic vendors are cropping up. Expect this trend to increase in the coming years.

–(52)–



by Vijayta Sharma July 16, 2015

SOCIAL MEDIA: TRANSFORMING BIG DATA TO BIGGER DATA, AND BIGGER DISCOVERY CHALLENGES

According to Facebook’s developer blog, Facebook processes 600 terabytes of data each day. This is largely fragmented data, spread across a multitude of social mediums, and it is giving rise to a number of new eDiscovery challenges. As the number of social mediums keeps increasing, the big data issue is only going to get bigger and bigger.

It’s difficult to grasp the rate at which big data is compounding not just in volume but also in complexity. According to Facebook’s First Quarter 2015 Results, as on March 31, 2015 it had 1.44 billion monthly active users with an annual increase of 13 percent. Additionally, The Top 20 Valuable Facebook Statistics, mentions that in every 60 seconds on Facebook, 510 comments are posted, 293,000 statuses are updated, and 136,000 photos are uploaded. It also mentions that 42% of marketers report that Facebook is critical to their business.

These statistics are important because social media is playing a key role in growing number of court cases. According to Rule 901(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, evidence can be authenticated or identified by “testimony that a matter is what it is claimed to be” or by the “appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics taken in conjunction with circumstances.”

Admissibility of Social Media EvidenceIn addition, Rule 901(b)(4) authenticates Electronically Stored Information (ESI) if the producing party has an evidence that shows the “contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics” of the evidence.

Hence for an evidence to be admissible, it is required for a litigant to establish that the evidence is (1) relevant, (2) authentic, and (3) not subject to being excluded under the rules of hearsay. Social media is easily discoverable for many matters given those rules.

Social media has played a central role in a number of high profile cases. Lorraine v. Markel American Ins. Co. was one of the initial cases in which ESI was used as

evidence. Further, in Offenback v. L.M. Bowman, Inc., the plaintiff was ordered to provide login details of his Facebook account since he alleged that his accident prevented him from riding a motorcycle whereas his Facebook postings showed that he continued to ride motorcycles.

Recently, in In re Milo’s Kitchen Dog Treats Consolidated Cases, the court ordered the production of social media login details and in Spearin v. Linmar, the court requested for ‘in camera review’ of discoverable content. This flurry of judgments has brought information from social media into the mainstream fold of ESI, leaving enforcement and regulatory authorities scrambling to harmonize it with the rules governing traditional forms of evidence.

Preservation of Social Media EvidenceSince the quantity of information on social media is vast and spreads in an unregulated manner, both parties to litigation are in danger of being pulled up by the courts for posting or deleting content from social media accounts as it can later turn out to be crucial evidence.

The judiciary has been very particular about the preservation of evidence and there have been several cases in which courts have imposed sanctions for destroying social media evidence. In Allied Concrete Co. v. Lester, the court ordered the defendant’s attorney to pay $542,000 for instructing his client to conceal pieces of evidence available on his Facebook profile and an additional penalty of $180,000 on the defendant for destroying the evidence.

LexisNexis mentions that 81% of legal professionals use social media in criminal investigations. In a very recent matter of State Of Missouri v. Nicholas Paul Godejohn and Gypsy R. Blancharde, pertaining to felony, Facebook played a key role in identifying the homicide and Facebook screenshots were considered as critical piece of evidence.

Management of Social Media Content for E-discovery ObligationsAs companies witness a huge influx of

electronic information that gets transmitted through various mediums, the challenge is to make social media manageable in the eDiscovery context. The growing volumes, increasing complexities, fragmented social mediums and rising cost pressure can pose a number of challenges for tracking, managing and identifying information that is relevant to a particular litigation or investigation.

Social media data can be managed more effectively by running batteries of searches on review platforms and leveraging analytics technologies that most modern e-discovery tools provide. These challenges can also be managed with sound human expertise in conjunction with technology-assisted review as was also affirmed in the matter of Good v. American Water Works. Additionally, a proper information governance process in place facilitates better collection and records management.

Social Media is both addictive and pervasive. With the amount of information produced through social media and the importance being accorded to it by the judiciary, effective and efficient management of this information has become all the more important, and e-discovery professionals should proactively continue to bring in new techniques to keep themselves up to speed with the technological changes.

About the Author:Vijayta is a project manager with LexInnova, an eDiscovery and technology litigation consulting firm, where she manages document review projects of varying complexities and diverse subject matters. She is tech savvy and uses TAR for better project management. She is reachable at [email protected].

–(53)–

Featured (Author): Vijayta Sharma (Manager - Litigation Solution)

Story By: Vijayta Sharma

July 06,2015

Cisco tops list of security-related patents

Technology company Cisco Systems owns the most network security-related patents globally, while the US and China top the associated list of jurisdictions, according to a report by a technology advisory �rm.

In the LexInnova report, which details the companies and jurisdictions responsible for the highest number of patents directed to security, Cisco and anti-virus company Symantec took the �rst two spots.

The report, called “Network Security: Overview of patent out-licensing opportunities”, revealed that Cisco had a portfolio of 6,442 patents, while Symantec had 5,757.

Juniper Networks, with a portfolio of 2,926 patents, and McAfee, with 1,934, were third and fourth on the list.

Among the most frequently patented technologies by all companies were security

protocols, with 5,622 applications. There were 1,875 patents related to anti-virus technology and 1,841 directed to “identity and access management authorisation”.

“The network security industry is highly competitive, and dominated by big companies such as Cisco, Symantec, and McAfee,” the report said.

Citing �ndings by market research �rm MarketsandMarkets, the report said the value of the network security market was $95.6 billion in 2014 and is expected to grow to $155.7 billion by 2019.

The high interest in security-related patents has

also seen an expansion in mergers and acquisitions in this area, the report said.

“These companies try to protect their market position through constant innovations and frequent acquisitions,” it said.

The US has seen the most patent �lings related to security technology, followed by China, Canada and Australia, according to the report, although �gures were not provided.

Cisco Systems, Symantec, patent, security, LexInnova, security patents

–(54)–

Featured (Report): Network Security Report

July 06,2015by Richard Chirgwin

US dominates net-security patents, China, Canada and Oz on the advanceCisco led the pack, even before the big buys of 2015

suggests that Juniper is highly innovative, noting that its portfolio shows the least similarity to the patent collections of other vendors (the overlap was measured by the number of times a patent application from one company, such as Check Point, cited a patent held by a competitor like McAfee).

Check Point and Juniper were singled out for having high-quality patents (although

relatively low in volume), while Cisco makes up for middling quality by the volume of its applications.

Unsurprisingly, security protocols dominate the �lings in network security, with security-related �lings in distributed computing and packet switching coming up behind.

The US, China, Canada and Australia are the world's major sources of security patents, according to analysis by LexInnova.

The company issued a report on Friday looking at the market for security patent licensing.

It'll come as no surprise that Cisco is the 800-pound gorilla of the security game with 6,442 patents (followed closely by Symantec with 5,757).

Daylight comes third, since the next-biggest patent holder is Juniper Networks with a comparatively-paltry 2,926 patents. However, LexInnova

Who's who in the network security patent game, according to LexInnova

–(55)–


Story By: Richard Chirgwin

July 03,2015by David Braue

Australia is world's fourth-largest holder of networksecurity patents, analysis �nds

Australian companies are the world's fourth-largest recipients of network security-related patents, according to a new analysis that has evaluated the patent portfolios of leading organisations by business line and geography.

The Network Security: Overview of patent out-licensing opportunities report, compiled by technology-advisory �rm LexInnova, evaluated the information-security portfolios of information-security vendors, categorised those patents by functional area, and evaluated functional overlaps that might pose risks of intellectual-property con�icts or acquisition activities.

Security protocols represented the most

frequently patented area, with 5622 applications, while distributed computing (2900), packet switching (2478), packet �lters (2351), network error detection and correction (1989), antivirus (1875), and identity and access management authorisation (1841) were also areas of intensive patent focus.

Cisco Systems had the largest portfolio with 6442 security-related patents, followed by Symantec (5757), Juniper Networks (2926), and McAfee (1934). Smaller organisations like Trend Micro (507), Riverbed Networks (468), Fortinet (353), F5 Networks (332) and Websense (201) all had small but signi�cant patent portfolios and many were, in LexInnova's evaluation, often quite similar and Juniper Networks the

large vendor with the least similarity to the patents of smaller vendors.

LexInnova applied a proprietary methodology, which it calls LexScore, to rank security players based on their patent portfolios and found that while Cisco and Symantec were leading in terms of portfolio �lings, “promising companies” Check Point and Palo Alto Networks were leaders in terms of portfolio quality – based on bibliographical references and the claim characteristics of a particular patent – “but are found lacking here, due to their reduced patent �ling”.

–(56)–


Story By: David Braue

By Kaushal Jha, June 23, 2015

Contd.

Mitigating Risks in Technology LitigationCorporations can analyze cost drivers and derive the best methods to reverse troubling litigation spending trends. Technology is always changing and it has emerged as a major challenge in the ever-evolving technology environment for corporations. Technology litigation is rising precipitously in both form and spend and there has been an immense rise in litigation costs over the last two decades. Corporate counsel is continuously facing challenges with the increased horrid volume and complex electronic data. In a recent report, Norton Rose Fulbright's 2015 Litigation Trends Survey, which was conducted among U.S. respondents, it was found that there has been an increase in the legal budgets of corporations. With the increasing number of patent suits, many corporations have augmented their intellectual property litigation budget. Life sciences, healthcare and technology and innovation have emerged as big-dollar cases in the U.S. With large

companies involved in big lawsuits and e-discovery playing a major contributor to in�ated litigation budgets, corporate counsel is continuously carving out ways for making advances in e-discovery and related technologies. They have started adapting various cost reduction methods, better project management techniques, alternative fee arrangements, and are scrutinizing the selection criterion of apropos service provider. The legal industry has grown colossally, and service providers have begun to concentrate on establishing standardized processes and methods in an e�ort to meet the ethical requirements of a corporate counsel. The technology development provides an opportunity for the service provider to step into the consulting role, however, the service provider isn’t necessarily able to make that shift in a role of a consultant. These factors have turned out to be

the most persistent challenges for corporations conducting litigation in the era of digital information. While there is no single approach solution, but with a close navel-gazing, corporations can analyze such cost drivers and derive the best methods to reverse troubling litigation spending trends. Some of these approaches are listed below: Mix of Lawyers and Technology Experts: The service provider should be in a position to advise their clients on e-discovery strategy, and help lawyers to identify where potentially relevant information might exist in connection with the litigation. This requires a team of experts, one who is managing the discovery process and the other who can translate technical skills and know-hows to attorneys. Technology litigation requires a team of varied skills set, and it has posed a challenging task for the service provider to become specialists in all of the skills and technologies required in technology litigation. The corporate counsel and the service providers need to explore the implications of the changing nature of the technology and educate their

team to acquire the new skill sets required for performing the reviews. Service Provider Selection: The selection process requires careful consideration of several factors, including but not limited to the stability and scalability of a service provider’s infrastructure, skills set in relation to the complexity of the matter, and the ability to meet current e-discovery needs. The service provider needs to evolve in response to the technology changes, and must assume a more sophisticated role within the corporations. Where a litigation service provider may have previously focused primarily on providing legal assistance, they now also have to serve a number of in-house legal and consulting functions. If the service provider is well equipped to take on the challenges posed by the technology changes and has an established work�ow in place, the discovery process will be more cost e�cient and sustainable for clients. Alternative Fee Arrangements (AFAs): AFAs is not a novel idea, but there is a limited practice and application of these pricing arrangements. Technology has become more obscure and leads to serious risks in scoping of the project. It has become imperative for the corporations to embrace the value proposition of AFAs. Such

arrangement can take the form of �xed fees, contingency fees, value or success based fees or other alternatives to hourly fees that meets the requirements of a speci�c case. There is no blanket rule of using di�erent fee arrangements, but it should bring value and inherit the bene�ts of shifting some or all of the legal fee risk involved in a technology litigation. Fixed fee, capped fee and the blended rate have emerged as the most commonly used AFAs in the U.S. Improving the Cost and Quality through Better Project Management: Strong project management not only control costs, but also meets the changing client priorities and project surprises. Experienced project managers are quick and e�cient in setting up projects, design work�ows, check project e�ciency, and keeping track of budgeting. The Project Manager should be capable enough to provide details and communicate the technical issue involved in the case. Client Engagement Tool: The rise of the technology has led to a paradigm shift in the way law �rms and service providers engage with their clients. The client engagement tool should be used to further strengthen the ongoing relationships. This may involve frequent online interactions,

monitor and manage active projects, view project progress in real-time, view deliverable statistics, track hours and project budget. Regular Update the Preferred Vendor List: There should be an established, ongoing process to review vendors with which the corporation has worked in the past few years. The vendors can be rated and evaluated on various factors such as the service o�erings and experiences, ability to meet deadlines, reasonable and transparent pricing structure, quality of work, potential to work on quick turnaround projects and communication channels. Predictive Coding Should Not Be Viewed as a “Messiah”: Corporations are still struggling to reap the bene�ts of predictive coding in performing reviews as it has failed to gain widespread use in the legal department. It must be ensured that the technology used is compatible and does not emerge as an impediment in meeting the new challenges of technology litigation. Corporate counsel must develop a strong understanding of the problems related to each case, work on weakest link, develop their internal talent, and reinforce that understanding with the appropriate skills and experience to ensure accurate and defensible review.

–(57)–

Featured (Author): Kaushal Jha (Manager Litigation Solution)

By Kaushal Jha, June 23, 2015

Contd. from page 1

Corporations can analyze cost drivers and derive the best methods to reverse troubling litigation spending trends. Technology is always changing and it has emerged as a major challenge in the ever-evolving technology environment for corporations. Technology litigation is rising precipitously in both form and spend and there has been an immense rise in litigation costs over the last two decades. Corporate counsel is continuously facing challenges with the increased horrid volume and complex electronic data. In a recent report, Norton Rose Fulbright's 2015 Litigation Trends Survey, which was conducted among U.S. respondents, it was found that there has been an increase in the legal budgets of corporations. With the increasing number of patent suits, many corporations have augmented their intellectual property litigation budget. Life sciences, healthcare and technology and innovation have emerged as big-dollar cases in the U.S. With large

companies involved in big lawsuits and e-discovery playing a major contributor to in�ated litigation budgets, corporate counsel is continuously carving out ways for making advances in e-discovery and related technologies. They have started adapting various cost reduction methods, better project management techniques, alternative fee arrangements, and are scrutinizing the selection criterion of apropos service provider. The legal industry has grown colossally, and service providers have begun to concentrate on establishing standardized processes and methods in an e�ort to meet the ethical requirements of a corporate counsel. The technology development provides an opportunity for the service provider to step into the consulting role, however, the service provider isn’t necessarily able to make that shift in a role of a consultant. These factors have turned out to be

the most persistent challenges for corporations conducting litigation in the era of digital information. While there is no single approach solution, but with a close navel-gazing, corporations can analyze such cost drivers and derive the best methods to reverse troubling litigation spending trends. Some of these approaches are listed below: Mix of Lawyers and Technology Experts: The service provider should be in a position to advise their clients on e-discovery strategy, and help lawyers to identify where potentially relevant information might exist in connection with the litigation. This requires a team of experts, one who is managing the discovery process and the other who can translate technical skills and know-hows to attorneys. Technology litigation requires a team of varied skills set, and it has posed a challenging task for the service provider to become specialists in all of the skills and technologies required in technology litigation. The corporate counsel and the service providers need to explore the implications of the changing nature of the technology and educate their

team to acquire the new skill sets required for performing the reviews. Service Provider Selection: The selection process requires careful consideration of several factors, including but not limited to the stability and scalability of a service provider’s infrastructure, skills set in relation to the complexity of the matter, and the ability to meet current e-discovery needs. The service provider needs to evolve in response to the technology changes, and must assume a more sophisticated role within the corporations. Where a litigation service provider may have previously focused primarily on providing legal assistance, they now also have to serve a number of in-house legal and consulting functions. If the service provider is well equipped to take on the challenges posed by the technology changes and has an established work�ow in place, the discovery process will be more cost e�cient and sustainable for clients. Alternative Fee Arrangements (AFAs): AFAs is not a novel idea, but there is a limited practice and application of these pricing arrangements. Technology has become more obscure and leads to serious risks in scoping of the project. It has become imperative for the corporations to embrace the value proposition of AFAs. Such

arrangement can take the form of �xed fees, contingency fees, value or success based fees or other alternatives to hourly fees that meets the requirements of a speci�c case. There is no blanket rule of using di�erent fee arrangements, but it should bring value and inherit the bene�ts of shifting some or all of the legal fee risk involved in a technology litigation. Fixed fee, capped fee and the blended rate have emerged as the most commonly used AFAs in the U.S. Improving the Cost and Quality through Better Project Management: Strong project management not only control costs, but also meets the changing client priorities and project surprises. Experienced project managers are quick and e�cient in setting up projects, design work�ows, check project e�ciency, and keeping track of budgeting. The Project Manager should be capable enough to provide details and communicate the technical issue involved in the case. Client Engagement Tool: The rise of the technology has led to a paradigm shift in the way law �rms and service providers engage with their clients. The client engagement tool should be used to further strengthen the ongoing relationships. This may involve frequent online interactions,

monitor and manage active projects, view project progress in real-time, view deliverable statistics, track hours and project budget. Regular Update the Preferred Vendor List: There should be an established, ongoing process to review vendors with which the corporation has worked in the past few years. The vendors can be rated and evaluated on various factors such as the service o�erings and experiences, ability to meet deadlines, reasonable and transparent pricing structure, quality of work, potential to work on quick turnaround projects and communication channels. Predictive Coding Should Not Be Viewed as a “Messiah”: Corporations are still struggling to reap the bene�ts of predictive coding in performing reviews as it has failed to gain widespread use in the legal department. It must be ensured that the technology used is compatible and does not emerge as an impediment in meeting the new challenges of technology litigation. Corporate counsel must develop a strong understanding of the problems related to each case, work on weakest link, develop their internal talent, and reinforce that understanding with the appropriate skills and experience to ensure accurate and defensible review.

–(58)–

Featured (Author): Kaushal Jha (Manager Litigation Solution)


By Chris Talbot June 22, 2015

Cisco holds broadest network security patent portfolio, but loses in quality

When it comes to the number of patents in its security portfolio, Cisco Systems has the biggest and broadest, but smaller, more security-focused vendors are winning in terms of quality, according to a new report and infographic from consulting �rm LexInnova.

Cisco appears to be collecting network security patents. According to LexInnova, Cisco currently has about 6,442 patents or patent applications related strictly to network security. Not exactly a small number. And although Cisco's quality score is higher than many of its competitors, a higher level of quality among that intellectual property is found among security-focused vendors, particularly Check Point and Palo Alto Networks – both of which score very high on quality, but not so much on their breadth.

LexInnova's report also speculates that niche players

may very well get scooped up in merger and acquisition deals by the larger companies. That's not out of the ordinary, as players like Cisco have added to their security

portfolios through acquisition. We'll have to wait and see which ones remain independent and which end up being acquisition targets

–(59)–


Story By: Chris Talbot

By Derek Handova June 22, 2015

Start Me Up! (Part 1): Indian Startup Scene in Silicon Valley

Clearly, the world economy has rebounded since September 2014. And with that the venture capitalists (VCs) have opened up their purse strings with startup funding increasing 62 percent since 2013. A lot of this money is destined for Silicon Valley and some of it for India-associated startups. So what is being funded in the Indian Silicon Valley startup scene?

Economy Lead contacted a number of leading startups in Silicon Valley founded by those of Indian heritage or with signi�cant operations in India to �nd out what they are up to with their slice of VC money. What follows is part one of a roundup of what’s hot right now among Indian startups.

Patent and litigation technology startupSomeone once said that nothing in life is certain except death and taxes. However, she may have overlooked the modernists’ penchant for taking each other to court. With so many lawsuits �led and other legal handiwork in need of attending, India-founded patent, litigation and technology consulting startup LexInnova sees a large niche in need of �lling.

“While we provide an array of services, our key service

that’s generated interest recently is providing consulting/analytics to leading technology companies by leveraging intellectual property,” says Abhi Verma, managing director, LexInnova, “to help them focus their R&D e�orts and identify gaps, which they can �ll by acquiring other companies or licensing their patents.” While LexInnova has not yet received VC funding, it has had numerous o�ers to date. “However, we plan to seek funding this year,” Verma says, “as we expand rapidly and move some of our services to a SaaS model.”

Source of startup funding startupIronically, for this article, one of the leading Silicon Valley startups of Indian origin has generated more than $1.2 billion in funding for other

startups and small businesses over its lifetime. This startup, Biz2Credit, founded by CEO Rohit Arora in 2007, is widely recognized as the No. 1 online credit resource for startup loans, lines of credit, equipment loans, working capital and other funding options, according to a company source.

“Using the latest technology, Biz2Credit matches borrowers to �nancial institutions based on each company’s unique pro�le,” Arora says of his insight into a gap in startup funding. “Despite small businesses being among banking institutions most pro�table loan clients, many entrepreneurs and small business owners from South Asia and India seemed to have trouble securing bank loans—even though such entrepreneurs boast low default rates.”

Contd.

A former consultant for Deloitte in the 2000s, Arora and his brother Ramit Arora come originally from Delhi, which gave them an appreciation for the obstacles that entrepreneurial Indian immigrants can face. Channeling that experience, in just eight years, Biz2Credit funding has helped create more than 11,000 jobs. And the funding pace should pick up this year based on projections for $600 million more of new business loans in 2015, according to Biz2Credit.

Smart grid startupAs smart grid technology catches on around the world for making electrical utilities more e�cient, their needs for data analytics will only increase. One Indian startup rushing to �ll that need is AutoGrid.

“AutoGrid’s software analyzes the exponentially expanding wave of data being generated by smart meters, building management systems, voltage regulators, thermostats and other equipment,” says Raj Pai, global head of products, AutoGrid. “So utilities can obtain precise insight into where power is going and enact automated, responsive controls in conjunction with their customers.”

With the recent release of its third version of the Energy Data Platform and in partnership with Microsoft and Trilliant to develop predictive

analytics for utilities, AutoGrid is executing its vision. For example, the city of Palo Alto (California) utilities department has been able to use demand response to shed 1.2 megawatts per demand response event or reduce 3.5 MWh of total energy per event. This capability seems even more important in light of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission estimate that the United States could avoid building 188 gigawatts of power plants through dynamic peak power controls.

–(60)–


By Derek Handova June 22, 2015

Clearly, the world economy has rebounded since September 2014. And with that the venture capitalists (VCs) have opened up their purse strings with startup funding increasing 62 percent since 2013. A lot of this money is destined for Silicon Valley and some of it for India-associated startups. So what is being funded in the Indian Silicon Valley startup scene?

Economy Lead contacted a number of leading startups in Silicon Valley founded by those of Indian heritage or with signi�cant operations in India to �nd out what they are up to with their slice of VC money. What follows is part one of a roundup of what’s hot right now among Indian startups.

Patent and litigation technology startupSomeone once said that nothing in life is certain except death and taxes. However, she may have overlooked the modernists’ penchant for taking each other to court. With so many lawsuits �led and other legal handiwork in need of attending, India-founded patent, litigation and technology consulting startup LexInnova sees a large niche in need of �lling.

“While we provide an array of services, our key service

that’s generated interest recently is providing consulting/analytics to leading technology companies by leveraging intellectual property,” says Abhi Verma, managing director, LexInnova, “to help them focus their R&D e�orts and identify gaps, which they can �ll by acquiring other companies or licensing their patents.” While LexInnova has not yet received VC funding, it has had numerous o�ers to date. “However, we plan to seek funding this year,” Verma says, “as we expand rapidly and move some of our services to a SaaS model.”

Source of startup funding startupIronically, for this article, one of the leading Silicon Valley startups of Indian origin has generated more than $1.2 billion in funding for other

startups and small businesses over its lifetime. This startup, Biz2Credit, founded by CEO Rohit Arora in 2007, is widely recognized as the No. 1 online credit resource for startup loans, lines of credit, equipment loans, working capital and other funding options, according to a company source.

“Using the latest technology, Biz2Credit matches borrowers to �nancial institutions based on each company’s unique pro�le,” Arora says of his insight into a gap in startup funding. “Despite small businesses being among banking institutions most pro�table loan clients, many entrepreneurs and small business owners from South Asia and India seemed to have trouble securing bank loans—even though such entrepreneurs boast low default rates.”

Contd. from page 1

A former consultant for Deloitte in the 2000s, Arora and his brother Ramit Arora come originally from Delhi, which gave them an appreciation for the obstacles that entrepreneurial Indian immigrants can face. Channeling that experience, in just eight years, Biz2Credit funding has helped create more than 11,000 jobs. And the funding pace should pick up this year based on projections for $600 million more of new business loans in 2015, according to Biz2Credit.

Smart grid startupAs smart grid technology catches on around the world for making electrical utilities more e�cient, their needs for data analytics will only increase. One Indian startup rushing to �ll that need is AutoGrid.

“AutoGrid’s software analyzes the exponentially expanding wave of data being generated by smart meters, building management systems, voltage regulators, thermostats and other equipment,” says Raj Pai, global head of products, AutoGrid. “So utilities can obtain precise insight into where power is going and enact automated, responsive controls in conjunction with their customers.”

With the recent release of its third version of the Energy Data Platform and in partnership with Microsoft and Trilliant to develop predictive

analytics for utilities, AutoGrid is executing its vision. For example, the city of Palo Alto (California) utilities department has been able to use demand response to shed 1.2 megawatts per demand response event or reduce 3.5 MWh of total energy per event. This capability seems even more important in light of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission estimate that the United States could avoid building 188 gigawatts of power plants through dynamic peak power controls.

–(61)–

Story By: Derek Handova


By Rana J. Pratap June 8, 2015

Avago/Broadcom Create Patent Powerhouse

With their proposed $37 billion merger, Broadcom Corp. will strengthen Avago Technologies' patent position signi�cantly in sectors such as mobile, the data center and the Internet of Things.Avago’s own patent portfolio is small, with around 5,000 patents and patent applications. But when combined with patents and applications assigned to its recent acquisitions such as LSI, PLX, Emulex, CyOptics, and In�neon, the number of patents in its portfolio rises signi�cantly to 20,304. However, this is still slightly less than the 20,689 patent and applications Broadcom has in its portfolio.

The merged company would be the ninth largest holder of patents among the top semiconductor vendors, according to an analysis by our team at LexInnova. It would rank ahead in patents of TSMC (34,184), Texas Instruments (32,946), STMicroelectronics (32,910) and the proposed NXP/Freescale merger (30,344). It is behind only three logic vendors -- Qualcomm (76,130), Intel (59,569)

B r o a d c o m , Ava g o a n d L S I p a t e n t s r e l a t e d t o d a t a ce n t e r s y s t e m s.

and Renesas (40,751). The other top players include large consumer electronics companies (Samsung and Toshiba) and memory makers (Micron and SK Hynix).

LSI Corp. and Broadcom are major players in data center and server technology domains. The merger will result in the new Broadcom surging ahead of many leading players in these domains, such as Qualcomm and ARM. Speci�cally, Broadcom has a large number of patents and applications in the domains of power management, control units,

and memory controllers, which will bene�t the merged company.

In the mobile sector, the acquisition will give Avago access to Broadcom’s patents on baseband technology, which will add great value to the company and also help it stave o� competition from Qualcomm and MediaTek. Additionally, Avago will bene�t from Broadcom’s signi�cant number of patents and applications in the domain of transmission systems, data switching systems, multiplexing techniques etc.

Contd.

Last year, Broadcom announced its exit from the cellular baseband market, after a huge downfall in revenue due to strong competition from Qualcomm, Intel, MediaTek, and others. Without baseband technology, Broadcom's Wi-Fi chips became less attractive to low-end smartphone makers who prefer o�ering baseband processor integrated with Wi-Fi, in order to gain e�ciencies of cost and size. The situation became even worse for Broadcom when their major vendor, Samsung chose Qualcomm’s 28nm quad-core chip over their 40nm alternative. However, Broadcom continues to enjoy a strong presence in broadband and connectivity businesses.

Another major consequence of this acquisition will be Avago’s entry into IoT space. After exiting from cellular baseband market, IoT became one of Broadcom’s prime focuses. Broadcom has signi�cant patents and applications in the domain of topology management, resource management, information retrieval, etc. which are essential to succeed in the IoT space.

Overall, both Avago and Broadcom own signi�cant intellectual property in their

domains, and it will be interesting to see how they will leverage their collective assets. The acquisition is certainly a win-win for both companies, and greatly enhances Avago’s IP portfolio in the area of

mobile technology, the data center and IoT.

--Rana J. Pratap is a principal consultant for technology at LexInnova, a patent and litigation consulting �rm.

–(62)–

Featured (Author): Rana Pratap (Principal Consultant - Technology)

By Rana J. Pratap June 8, 2015

Avago’s own patent portfolio is small, with around 5,000 patents and patent applications. But when combined with patents and applications assigned to its recent acquisitions such as LSI, PLX, Emulex, CyOptics, and In�neon, the number of patents in its portfolio rises signi�cantly to 20,304. However, this is still slightly less than the 20,689 patent and applications Broadcom has in its portfolio.

The merged company would be the ninth largest holder of patents among the top semiconductor vendors, according to an analysis by our team at LexInnova. It would rank ahead in patents of TSMC (34,184), Texas Instruments (32,946), STMicroelectronics (32,910) and the proposed NXP/Freescale merger (30,344). It is behind only three logic vendors -- Qualcomm (76,130), Intel (59,569)

B r o a d co m , Ava g o p a t e n t s r e l a t e d t o m o b i l e s y s t e m s

Pa t e n t s o f t h e m e r g e d c o m p a n i e s r e l a t e d t o t h e I n t e r n e t o f T h i n g s

and Renesas (40,751). The other top players include large consumer electronics companies (Samsung and Toshiba) and memory makers (Micron and SK Hynix).

LSI Corp. and Broadcom are major players in data center and server technology domains. The merger will result in the new Broadcom surging ahead of many leading players in these domains, such as Qualcomm and ARM. Speci�cally, Broadcom has a large number of patents and applications in the domains of power management, control units,

and memory controllers, which will bene�t the merged company.

In the mobile sector, the acquisition will give Avago access to Broadcom’s patents on baseband technology, which will add great value to the company and also help it stave o� competition from Qualcomm and MediaTek. Additionally, Avago will bene�t from Broadcom’s signi�cant number of patents and applications in the domain of transmission systems, data switching systems, multiplexing techniques etc.

Contd. from page 1

Last year, Broadcom announced its exit from the cellular baseband market, after a huge downfall in revenue due to strong competition from Qualcomm, Intel, MediaTek, and others. Without baseband technology, Broadcom's Wi-Fi chips became less attractive to low-end smartphone makers who prefer o�ering baseband processor integrated with Wi-Fi, in order to gain e�ciencies of cost and size. The situation became even worse for Broadcom when their major vendor, Samsung chose Qualcomm’s 28nm quad-core chip over their 40nm alternative. However, Broadcom continues to enjoy a strong presence in broadband and connectivity businesses.

Another major consequence of this acquisition will be Avago’s entry into IoT space. After exiting from cellular baseband market, IoT became one of Broadcom’s prime focuses. Broadcom has signi�cant patents and applications in the domain of topology management, resource management, information retrieval, etc. which are essential to succeed in the IoT space.

Overall, both Avago and Broadcom own signi�cant intellectual property in their

domains, and it will be interesting to see how they will leverage their collective assets. The acquisition is certainly a win-win for both companies, and greatly enhances Avago’s IP portfolio in the area of

mobile technology, the data center and IoT.

--Rana J. Pratap is a principal consultant for technology at LexInnova, a patent and litigation consulting �rm.

–(63)–



By Monica Alleven June 3, 2015

Samsung, Qualcomm lead the charge in wireless power patent activitiesSamsung and Qualcomm (NASDAQ:QCOM) have �led the most patent applications and received the most patents for technology related to wireless power, with LG coming in third place, according to data compiled by LexInnova.

Guess who was a no-show? Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL). The consumer electronics giant hasn't amassed a ton of patents in the space, which is somewhat of a surprise given how much wireless power is driven by handset makers, said Rana Pratap, principal technology consultant at LexInnova.

Of course, Apple could license technology from Qualcomm or another vendor and not show up on the patent application list. But it's notable because a lot of industry observers are wondering what's cooking at Apple in the wireless charging arena.

LexInnova can also sort through patents and patent citations and automatically rank them. In a recent report ranking companies with the maximum number of high-strength patents, Qualcomm comes out on top, followed by Samsung, Access Business Group International, LG, WiTricity Corporation, Broadcom and Mojo Mobility.

Using what it calls its Licensing Heat Map framework, LexInnova is able to identify subdomains in the �eld of wireless power transmission where licensing activity is expected to be high. The research shows that inductive technique, magnetic resonating coupling and microwave power transmission are the subdomains where top assignees possess a good share of patents.

The report also notes that Qualcomm has a majority of its patents pertaining primarily to the inductive technique of wireless charging. The patent �ling trend "indicates that Qualcomm hasn't focused on magneto-dynamic coupling," the report states. LG has a strong portfolio in inductive technique, magnetic resonance coupling and mobile computing device.

Earlier this week, wireless power standards groups the Alliance for Wireless Power (A4WP) and Power Matters Alliance (PMA), announced the signing of a merger agreement between the two organizations. Previously at the International CES 2015, the organizations announced a merger letter of intent. The Wireless Power Consortium remains a separate standards group and continues to support the Qi wireless charging standard.

When looking at the three standards that have been competing in the wireless power transmission domain, it becomes clear that many major

companies are part of multiple standards. For example, LexInnova's research shows Samsung with 1,136 wireless power patents/patent applications, and that includes Qi, PMA and A4WP types. Qualcomm comes in with 1,014, and it, too, has dabbled in all three standards. The report notes that Qualcomm's Snapdragon 810 processors support Qualcomm's WiPower technology.

Toyota is another top assignee in wireless power transmission. The auto maker plans to introduce WiTricity wireless charging systems in its Prius and Avalon car models.

Geographically, China has witnessed maximum patent �lings, with 4,770 patent applications. The U.S. is in second place, followed by Korea and Japan.

Total patents/patent applications in various consortiums. (Source: LexInnova)

–(64)–

Featured: Rana Pratap (Principal Consultant - Technology)

Story By: Monica Alleven

By Monica Alleven June 3, 2015

Xiaomi, China’s New Phone Giant, Takes Aim at WorldEntrepreneur Lei Jun’s smartphone startup used social networking to win over Chinese, but can he repeat overseas?

NEW DELHI—When Xiaomi Corp. launched a new smartphone here in April, there was an air of chaos. Employees were still stu�ng gift bags that morning, and a few sta�ers from Beijing headquarters, pressed for time, arrived on tourist rather than business visas.

After Xiaomi Chief Executive O�cer Lei Jun stepped onstage, his �rst time speaking publicly in English, he veered o� script. His odd phrasing went viral in online videos of him repeatedly asking the crowd, “Are you OK?”

No matter. The Chinese smartphone seller’s online o�ering of 40,000 phones sold out in 15 seconds. Hundreds lined up outside the launch venue, including 17-year-old Raghav Goyal, who drove seven hours to attend and

said the Xiaomi phone was a much better value than its big-name rivals.

“Apple is gone!” he shouted after the unveiling. “Apple and Samsung SSNHZ 0.00 % are gone!”

That is the kind of zealotry Mr. Lei, 45, is counting on to replicate overseas his success in China, where he has used an unusual mix of social-network marketing, fan-appreciation festivals and his own tech-star

status to become No. 2 in smartphone-market share after Apple Inc.

“In the smartphone world, there is no one comparable” with its business model, says Aditya Awasthi, research head at LexInnova, a Houston tech-consulting �rm. “It’s a new-age smartphone company.”

–(65)–

Story By: Monica Alleven

Featured: Aditya Awasthi (Director - Client Services) June 3, 2015

JUNE 2, 2015by Rana J Pratap, PhD

Contd.

WHY ALTERA’S ACQUISITION IS A TIMELY MOVE BY INTEL

Earlier today Intel agreed to �nalize a takeover of Altera. Here's why it's a timely move.

Editor’s note: The following is a guest post by Rana J Pratap, PhD. Rana is Principal Consultant – Technology at LexInnova, a patent and litigation consulting �rm. He can be reached at [email protected]

The semiconductor industry has witnessed a wave of consolidation in recent times, through a string of mergers and acquisitions in the last few months. Avago’s $37 billion acquisition of Broadcom last week, and NXP’s acquisition of Freescale for $11.8 billion in March are some of the recent acquisitions that have garnered a lot of attention.

Intel (NASDAQ: INTC), the world’s leading semiconductor chipmakers continued this trend yesterday, by agreeing to buy Altera, a leading manufacturer of �eld-programmable gate array (FPGA) devices for $16.7 billion. This acquisition would combine Intel’s leading position in microprocessors with Altera’s position in programmable logic devices (that is second only to Xilinx). Intel has diverse

product lines, which include processors and memory chips for PCs, servers, and mobile devices, while Altera concentrates solely on FPGAs. FPGA chips are very �exible and have the advantage of being able to handle speci�c workloads with very fast compute times. This means that if any critical algorithms change, or a new computing workload is implemented, the FPGA can be reprogrammed without the need to undergo a lot of hardware change.

Intel is the market leader in general purpose computing servers, but the computing needs of today’s datacenter, telecommunications, and IoT markets are evolving rapidly, and can only be paci�ed with the programmability of FPGAs. FPGA chips have been in use within

servers to improve overall system performance, and through this acquisition, Intel could bring major technology changes to cater to its big data and cloud customers. The combined potential of Intel and Altera would also make the combined entity well poised to target a growing market of telecommunications and IoT applications. This will allow Intel to add more product lines to boost its revenue, while also allowing it to consolidate its lead in the server market. Additionally, as FPGAs command high margins, fabricating them would help Intel in improving its top line revenues.

–(66)–


JUNE 2, 2015by Rana J Pratap, PhD

Contd. from page 1

Intel already integrates Altera’s FPGA technology with its Xeon chip to customize CPUs and run special data center workloads (such as hardware acceleration). Intel’s biggest threat in the data center is from the servers based on ARM architecture. While Intel’s CPU is best for general purpose computing, ARM based CPUs would be superior in implementing speci�c workloads through hardware. Currently, most of these workloads run in software on an Intel CPU. With this acquisition, Intel can use Altera’s FPGAs to implement these workloads in hardware to counter any threat from ARM servers, capable of hardware-implemented workloads. This could also help Intel counter Nvidia, which has a lead over Intel in vector/parallel processing cores that are used in supercomputers and scienti�c computing.

Altera has already signed a deal with Intel to use its foundry last year to manufacture FPGAs. This was a win-win relationship because FPGA fabrication requires latest process nodes and a smaller die

area (both of which Intel can o�er) to be cost e�ective. Backed by Intel’s fabrication capabilities will allow Altera to compete better against competitors such as Xilinx. The relationship also bene�ts Intel, as it has been struggling to keep its foundries utilized with PC sales going down, which still account for 60% of its revenue. Now Intel will be able to keep its foundries fully utilized, without having to fabricate for competitors such as Mediatek (TPE: 2454) and Qualcomm (NASDAQ: QCOM).

Our research team at LexInnova performed an analysis of the patent portfolios of both Intel

and Altera. According to our analysis, both companies follow similar patent �ling trends in a number of technology domains

(such as General purpose processing, specialized processing, I/O processing, etc.). This deal will strengthen Intel’s overall server portfolios as Altera has a strong patent portfolio in the server domain. It will also improve Intel’s capabilities in “processing.” While Intel leads in CPUs (14,925 patents/patent applications), and general-purpose processors (10,199 patents/patent applications), while Altera leads in general purpose processors (1,253 patents/patent applications) and specialized processors (1,221 patents/patent applications).

With strategic gains in technology, revenue, innovation, and intellectual property, Altera’s acquisition appears to be a well-timed move by Intel.

–(67)–



The Chinese want to challenge Apple on its home turf

The Chinese want to challenge Apple on its home turf

May 25, 2015Arjun Kharpal

Apple has continued to make its presence felt on the global smartphone market but there's a group of players looking to tackle the U.S. tech giant on its home turf – the Chinese.

As the smartphone market in the world's largest economy begins to slow, domestic manufacturers are looking overseas and see potential in the U.S.

A large number of companies from China have expressed an interest in entering the U.S. market, but trying to dislodge Apple from the top spot could be tricky business.

Established players such as electronics giant Lenovo and mobile infrastructure titan Huawei are continuing to invest in expanding their products into the U.S. Meanwhile upstart handset group Xiaomi has opened an international online store to sell its low-cost accessories and said smartphones would follow in the future. In April, Chinese video streaming site LeTV – known as the "Net�ix of China" – launched a smartphone that said would come to the U.S. within a year.

The success of Xiaomi in China – estimated to be worth $45 billion following a recent round of funding – was due to its tactic of selling high-spec budget devices, a strategy followed by all of the Chinese smartphone makers. Two of the top �ve vendors in the world are Chinese, showing the dominance they are now commanding.

"The home market is now not as good as it was, so the chance to make higher margins in other markets is attractive," Ben Wood, chief of research at CCS Insight, told CNBC by phone.

But the strategy and level of recognition the brands had in China might not mean success as they move west.

Legal challenges?And expanding to the U.S. could also lead them in a lot of legal trouble when it comes to intellectual property.

Xiaomi only has 101 U.S. patents with only 2 granted patents. Apple on the other hand has about 8,200 active patents and patent applications, according to patent and litigation

consulting �rm LexInnova. ZTE has 1,874 U.S. patents, while Lenovo has around 2,978 thanks to its acquisition of Motorola last year. But this is tiny when compared to the 37,151 patents owned and applied for by Samsung, 17,502 by Sony and 14,456 by LG.

"Both Apple and Samsung have been forthright in using their patent portfolios to protect their business interests. Leading Chinese challengers, Xiaomi and Lenovo, have very limited patent protection in the U.S. market to avoid litigation from the incumbents," Rana Pratap, principal technology consultant at LexInnova, told CNBC by email.

Chinese 'relentless'Despite the headwinds, China's smartphone makers cannot be counted out in the U.S. A number of companies from Sony to Samsung have been

struggling in the smartphone business and this could provide an ample opportunity for China's �nest to swoop in.

"There is no room for complacency among existing players because the Chinese are relentless. If you are Sony or HTC for example, the last thing you need is the Chinese coming in with an extremely low margin when you are struggling to make money," Wood said.

Image problemsOne of the biggest challenges for China's tech giants, according to analysts, is building a brand in a market where Apple has a 41 percent market share. Huawei told CNBC earlier this year that branding and marketing is a "huge priority" while ZTE announced a sponsorship deal with the New York Knicks, Houston Rockets and Golden State Warriors NBA teams last year.

–(68)–


Story By: Arjun Kharpal

Featured: Rana Pratap (Principal Consultant - Technology) May 25, 2015

BY MARIA KOROLOV MAY 13, 2015

Hypergrid Business

Sony leads virtual reality patent race

Who holds the most virtual reality patents? (Image courtesy LexInnova.)

Sony is currently leading the virtual reality patent race, according to a new report from Houston-based patent consulting firm LexInnova,

According to the firm’s analysis of nearly 12,000 patents or patent applications, Sony has 366 virtual reality patents or patent applications. Microsoft is close behind, with 365, followed by Samsung with 348.

Sony is the maker of the Project Morpheus virtual reality headset, due out next year. Microsoft is the maker of the HoloLens, an augmented reality headset, with no release date announced. Samsung is the maker of the Gear VR headset, available for the Galaxy Note 4 and Galaxy S6 smarphones for $200.

Apple didn’t even make the top 15 list. According to LexInnova, Apple has just 21 virtual reality-related patents or patent applications

However, Microsoft has the strongest patent portfolio, based on a ranking of patents by value.

The top 15 list is heavily dominated by hardware companies, but nobody has a lock on the market just yet. According to LexInnova, the top three patent holders — Sony, Microsoft, and Samsung — together account for just 9 percent of virtual reality patents and patent applications.

Not growing as fast as other industriesThe number of new virtual reality patents being filed is increasing, the company said. But the increase isn’t at the same scale as that of other fast-growing sectors, such as the Internet of Things.

“This means that virtual reality technology is still in its nascent stages,” said Rana Pratap, LexInnova’s technology expert.

“However, as lots of companies have started investing in this technology, we expect it to mature rapidly and also account for lot of patent filing activity in the near future.”

There were 2,526 patents or patent applications in 2014, up from 563 in 2010.

“The technology is still developing, and a lot of research is expected to happen in the near future,” he told Hypergrid Business. We can also expect a lot of patenting activity from individual inventors.”

The patent applications are one of the signs of increased corporate interest in the virtual reality space. In addition, a large number of patents are being filed by small companies and individual investors.

LexInnova also pointed to the increase rate of investment in small startups, such as Facebook’s $2 billion acquisition of Oculus VR, and Google and Qualcomm’s investment in Magic Leap.

Interface development single biggest focusLexInnova also sorted the patents based on type of technology, and interface arrangements accounted for 2,041 of the patents, making it the single largest category.

It was followed by 3D modeling, with 1,727 patents or applications.

Types of patents. (Image courtesy LexInnova.)

LexInnova’s analysis also shows that virtual reality patents are not too broad.

“Based on our analysis, a majority of the patents assigned to the major analysis have an average claim broadness,” said Pratap.

Number of “high strength” patents by company. (Image courtesy LexInnova.)

–(69)–


Story By: Maria KOROLOV

May 8, 2015by Rana Pratap

Contd.

Who’s Winning the SSD Race? Ask the Patents

Traditional spinning hard disk drives (HDDs) have dominated datacenters since their inception, primarily due to lower upfront cost per gigabytes ($/GB) and the lack of other feasible storage options. This has begun to change in the last decade, since the cost of solid state drives (SSDs) started dropping.

Considering the demands of modern datacenters, which typically are dominated by virtual machines (VMs) and big data analytics, SSDs offer superior performance. This is important since cloud providers like Microsoft have begun to deliver premium storage with lower latency for big data applications on cloud databases.

Top Assignees from a pure cost standpoint, two factors are driving datacenter storage solutions towards solid-state drives. Firstly, SSDs offer a much lower operational, and in select cases, lower overall capital cost than HDDs. It is true that hard disk drives still offer significantly lower cost per gigabyte. However, if we take into account other factors such as cost per transaction, the cost of Input/Output operations per second ($/IOPS), and IOPS per watt, then SSDs begin to offset their higher purchase price per gigabyte.

The second factor driving adoption of SSDs is that the cost per gigabyte is falling. This decline is due to Moore’s Law and 3D stacking of memory cells used in SSDs. Moore’s Law allows for denser memory cell circuits that result in lower overall cell cost due to transistor scaling.

There are other considerations we should take into account as well. For example:

HDDs require over provisioning due to I/O blender effect from virtualization of storage, which is minimized in SSDs.

SSDs consume less power and generate less heat, resulting in lower utility bills and cheaper cooling systems.

Solid-state drives occupy <2x smaller space than comparable capacity hard disk drives and as 3D stacking technology advances, their size is expected to reduce further.

SSDs have lower latency, thus improving the responsiveness of applications, and shorter boot times.

Solid-state drives also have longer life and higher reliability because they do not have moving parts like hard disk drives.

According to the research conducted by our team at LexInnova, the majority of R&D in SSD technology has been in 3D NAND, which is the

most important technology for increasing the capacity and lowering the cost per gigabyte of storage drives. Today, 3D NAND based SSDs are available in the market, and are expected to be widely available by early next year.

As 3D NAND is proving to be a game changing technology for storage, it is safe to assume companies that have the strongest IP portfolios in this technology will be the most well positioned to emerge as market leaders. Gleaning from an IP report on 3D memory which LexInnova recently published, SanDisk, Micron, and Samsung are the top three patent assignees of this technology with 829, 219, and 194 patents/patent applications respectively. The number of patents/patent applications owned by the top three assignees comprise around 54 percent of the total patents/patent applications (around 2,300) filed in this domain.

Top assignee SanDisk shares a fabrication plant with Toshiba which also appears among the top seven assignees in 3D NAND technology. Samsung is also working on its own 3D stacked memory and has released

several iterations of it. Also, several companies are entering into partnerships to leverage their IP portfolios and share cost of manufacturing resources. Recently, Micron Technology announced that it was working with Intel to release 10TB flash memory in a 2mm chip by the end of this year.

Geographically, the United States has seen the most patent filings in the domain of 3D NAND technology, followed by China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. SanDisk is the top assignee in the United States with 425 patents.

Portfolio Apart from having the most patents in its portfolio, SanDisk’s portfolio is also exemplary in terms of quality based on LexInnova’s research. Briefly, “good quality” patents meet numerous criteria: They have good technological implications and many other assignees cite them; have been published in major markets; they were successfully granted after being filed; are broad enough to have a good chance of finding potential licensees and real-world applicability; and cover multiple aspects of a technology. HP, Rambus, and Hitachi also have good quality patents, but lack in filing activity, meaning there are fewer actual patents filed, according to our research. Taking a more granular look, Hitachi has the most high quality patents owing to a large number of patent citations, while HP’s patents have the one of the best technological coverage. IBM, Intel, and AMD lack on both patent quality and quantity of filings. Also, they have filed most of their patents recently (between 2012 and 2014), which hampers their quality. The quality of their portfolios could improve further in the future after successful grant of patents that are still in the application stage, and the addition of more citations.

Looking at the various technology sub-domains in the field of SSD technology, licensing activity is expected to be the highest in model parameters related to contact formation (FEOL); operating speed in contact formation (FEOL) along with structural features related to assembly/packaging. This is mainly because the patents related to these sub-domains are highly fragmented and distributed among a number of players.

Based on the strengths of their IP portfolios and significant investments in R&D, one can expect SanDisk, Samsung, and Micron to dominate the SSD market for datacenters in the years to come.

–(70)–


May 8, 2015by Rana Pratap

Contd. from page 1

Traditional spinning hard disk drives (HDDs) have dominated datacenters since their inception, primarily due to lower upfront cost per gigabytes ($/GB) and the lack of other feasible storage options. This has begun to change in the last decade, since the cost of solid state drives (SSDs) started dropping.

Considering the demands of modern datacenters, which typically are dominated by virtual machines (VMs) and big data analytics, SSDs offer superior performance. This is important since cloud providers like Microsoft have begun to deliver premium storage with lower latency for big data applications on cloud databases.

Top Assignees from a pure cost standpoint, two factors are driving datacenter storage solutions towards solid-state drives. Firstly, SSDs offer a much lower operational, and in select cases, lower overall capital cost than HDDs. It is true that hard disk drives still offer significantly lower cost per gigabyte. However, if we take into account other factors such as cost per transaction, the cost of Input/Output operations per second ($/IOPS), and IOPS per watt, then SSDs begin to offset their higher purchase price per gigabyte.

The second factor driving adoption of SSDs is that the cost per gigabyte is falling. This decline is due to Moore’s Law and 3D stacking of memory cells used in SSDs. Moore’s Law allows for denser memory cell circuits that result in lower overall cell cost due to transistor scaling.

There are other considerations we should take into account as well. For example:

HDDs require over provisioning due to I/O blender effect from virtualization of storage, which is minimized in SSDs.

SSDs consume less power and generate less heat, resulting in lower utility bills and cheaper cooling systems.

Solid-state drives occupy <2x smaller space than comparable capacity hard disk drives and as 3D stacking technology advances, their size is expected to reduce further.

SSDs have lower latency, thus improving the responsiveness of applications, and shorter boot times.

Solid-state drives also have longer life and higher reliability because they do not have moving parts like hard disk drives.

According to the research conducted by our team at LexInnova, the majority of R&D in SSD technology has been in 3D NAND, which is the

most important technology for increasing the capacity and lowering the cost per gigabyte of storage drives. Today, 3D NAND based SSDs are available in the market, and are expected to be widely available by early next year.

As 3D NAND is proving to be a game changing technology for storage, it is safe to assume companies that have the strongest IP portfolios in this technology will be the most well positioned to emerge as market leaders. Gleaning from an IP report on 3D memory which LexInnova recently published, SanDisk, Micron, and Samsung are the top three patent assignees of this technology with 829, 219, and 194 patents/patent applications respectively. The number of patents/patent applications owned by the top three assignees comprise around 54 percent of the total patents/patent applications (around 2,300) filed in this domain.

Top assignee SanDisk shares a fabrication plant with Toshiba which also appears among the top seven assignees in 3D NAND technology. Samsung is also working on its own 3D stacked memory and has released

several iterations of it. Also, several companies are entering into partnerships to leverage their IP portfolios and share cost of manufacturing resources. Recently, Micron Technology announced that it was working with Intel to release 10TB flash memory in a 2mm chip by the end of this year.

Geographically, the United States has seen the most patent filings in the domain of 3D NAND technology, followed by China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. SanDisk is the top assignee in the United States with 425 patents.

Portfolio Apart from having the most patents in its portfolio, SanDisk’s portfolio is also exemplary in terms of quality based on LexInnova’s research. Briefly, “good quality” patents meet numerous criteria: They have good technological implications and many other assignees cite them; have been published in major markets; they were successfully granted after being filed; are broad enough to have a good chance of finding potential licensees and real-world applicability; and cover multiple aspects of a technology. HP, Rambus, and Hitachi also have good quality patents, but lack in filing activity, meaning there are fewer actual patents filed, according to our research. Taking a more granular look, Hitachi has the most high quality patents owing to a large number of patent citations, while HP’s patents have the one of the best technological coverage. IBM, Intel, and AMD lack on both patent quality and quantity of filings. Also, they have filed most of their patents recently (between 2012 and 2014), which hampers their quality. The quality of their portfolios could improve further in the future after successful grant of patents that are still in the application stage, and the addition of more citations.

Looking at the various technology sub-domains in the field of SSD technology, licensing activity is expected to be the highest in model parameters related to contact formation (FEOL); operating speed in contact formation (FEOL) along with structural features related to assembly/packaging. This is mainly because the patents related to these sub-domains are highly fragmented and distributed among a number of players.

Based on the strengths of their IP portfolios and significant investments in R&D, one can expect SanDisk, Samsung, and Micron to dominate the SSD market for datacenters in the years to come.

–(71)–



May 5, 2015

Credit: Thinkstock

by Alison Diana

EMC Extends Flash with XtremIO Upgrade EMC this week expanded the capacity of its XtremIO all-flash storage array in a free upgrade to existing customers, and launched a 40TB X-Brick building block to scale all-flash clusters.

During a presentation at EMC World 2015, the developer presented its new flash offerings as a way for enterprises to consolidate more common workloads on solid-state storage systems. XtremIO 4.0 supports larger all-flash array configurations; expands on-demand capabilities, and consolidates workloads at higher levels of performance and availability than the prior iteration, according to EMC. The upgrade more than doubles previous density with 40TBs per X-Brick and configurations of up to eight 40TB X-Bricks with non-disruptive performance, the company said. In addition, organizations can opt for capacity expansions that automatically rebalance data for consistent, predictable sub-millisecond performance, EMC added.

Flash is slowly gaining traction in the enterprise, where its speed, small size, and energy efficiency can make it an attractive alternative to hard disk drives – especially in datacenters where big data and virtual machines rule supreme, said Rana Pratap, principal consultant, technology, at LexInnova, in an interview. However, cost continues to be a factor: Flash is more expensive than its predecessor, he added.

Because XtremIO 4.0 allows entire workflows to be streamlined and automated – from storage through the hypervisor and into the application itself – enterprises are adopting the array across mission-critical workloads and workflows including DevOps, real-time analytics, database acceleration, private and hybrid clouds, messaging, and electronic medical records, the company said.

The new version, which comes about 18 months after EMC began offering XtremIO, scales up to eight X-Bricks with 16 N-way active controllers, compared with the prior 12, and enterprises can non-disruptively expand arrays for performance and capacity. The storage array uses EMC RecoverPoint software for scale-out replication; data on the arrays can be replicated to other XtremIO arrays or any other array RecoverPoint supports, leveraging up to one-minute recovery point objectives (RPO). EMC integrated XtremIO’s copy data management functions in enterprise application management stacks including VMware, Oracle, Microsoft SQL Server, and Microsoft Exchange, and allows single pane of glass management for multiple clusters via XtremIO Management Server (XMS). The interface features historical reporting over two years of operating history; tagging and search capabilities; hosts; snapshots, and built-in reporting. Finally, the XtremIO and

Federation Enterprise Hybrid Cloud 3.0 offering is designed to allow businesses to consolidate all critical workloads and non-production lifecycle copies in a hybrid cloud with Tier 0 storage and copy services.

The array is available for order this quarter.

EMC acquired XtremeIO about three years ago for $430 million, predicting flash would become an important piece of the software-defined datacenter. In its most recent report on flash, IDC reported EMC earned $112.3 million and held 22.6 percent of the worldwide flash array market, followed by Pure Storage at $90.9 million and 18.3 percent share, and IBM at $82.9 million and 16.7 percent of the market.

–(72)–


Story By: Alison Diana

May 05, 2015

Sony, Microsoft and Samsung Electronics are the top holders and applicants of patents in the burgeoning virtual-reality market, according to a report from patent consultants LexInnova Technologies. The technology companies have 366, 365 and 348 �lings, respectively, out of a total of 11,751, it says.

Combined, the top three account for approximately 9% of virtual-reality patent �lings overall, which are mainly for virtual-reality interface arrangements, 3D modeling and data processing, adds Houston-based LexInnova. It also says the U.S. is leading in virtual-reality patent �lings, followed closely by South Korea and China.

Sarah E. Needleman

Sony, Microsoft, Samsung Lead in Virtual-Reality Patents

–(73)–

Featured (Report): Virtual Reality Report

Story By: Sarah Needleman

Combined, the top three account for approximately 9% of virtual-reality patent lings overall, whichare mainly for virtual-reality interface arrangements, 3D modeling and data processing, addsHouston-based LexInnova. It also says the U.S. is leading in virtual-reality patent lings, followedclosely by South Korea and China.

Nokia Alcatel-Lucent deal would make a complementary patent portfolio

Computerworld | Apr 14, 2015 12:32 PM PT

The possible acquisition of Alcatel-Lucent of Franceby Finland-based Nokia would bring together complementary patent portfolios and increase their scale against larger global competitors, analysts said Tuesday.

Nokia’s patents primarily cover technology used for communications between smartphones and cell towers equipped with base stations that are provisioned with routers and other gear. Meanwhile, Alcatel-Lucent’s patents are more concentrated on communications beyond the base stations to the backhaul, which is often over �ber optic cable.

Credit: Thinkstock

By Matt Hamblen

“While the two companies have adjacent technologies, there is limited overlap in them, so this results in a good combined portfolio with the whole of the telecom technology stack,” said Aditya Awasthi, director of client services at Lexinnova, a patent analytics company based in Houston.

Lexinnova analyzed hundreds of patents held by the two companies to reach its general conclusion about the possible deal's impact on their combined patents. News of a potential deal was disclosed by the two companies early Tuesday. The companies said in a brief statement that they are in “advanced discussions” about a stock o�er by Nokia for Alcatel-Lucent, but warned there is “no certainty at this stage that these discussions will result in any agreement or transaction.”

Patent prowess could play an important role in the ability of a combined company to compete against larger rivals Ericsson of Sweden and Huawei of China , at least globally, if not in the U.S. Having a larger patent portfolio will be more important as wired and wireless networks converge to handle video and other rich content, especially with the advent of faster 5G wireless technologies in coming years.

Huawei networking gear isn’t widely used in the U.S., largely because a congressional report in 2012 raised concerns about the national security risks behind use of networking equipment from a China-based company. Huawei has denied any risks exist.

If Nokia acquires Alcatel-Lucent, carriers in the U.S. would face having just three major core network gear options: Nokia, Ericsson and Samsung, said Gartner analyst Bill Menezes. “A question this raises is whether U.S. regulators would take another look at allowing a big global vendor such as Huawei to provide core infrastructure to U.S. wireless operators, for the sake of competition,” he said. Other analysts also included Cisco in that group.

U.S. carriers AT&T, Verizon and Sprint declined to comment on the possible deal. Still, there’s little question that the carriers will watch carefully as events unfold, especially since Alcatel-Lucent has already struck equipment deals with both AT&T and Verizon. The pricing of major carrier equipment from the likes of Nokia and Alcatel-Lucent is critically important to how carriers meet their bottom lines.

Jack Gold, an analyst at J. Gold Associates, said both companies may see the need to combine to “keep the competitors at bay…. Neither Nokia nor Alcatel-Lucent is really big enough to compete with Huawei in particular on a worldwide basis.” He said Huawei has been stymied in the U.S. due to the fears of Chinese spying potential, “but in the rest of the world they have been quite aggressive and have had some big wins.”

Combined revenues for Nokia and Alcatel-Lucent companies were $27 billion in 2014, which was slightly larger than either Ericsson or Huawei. –(74)–

Featured: Aditya Awasthi (Director - Client Services) April 14, 2015

Story By: Matt Hamblen

Nokia in "advanced" talks to acquire Alcatel-Lucent

11:04 a.m. EDT April 14, 2015

NEW YORK—Nokia and Alcatel-Lucent have “con�rmed” that they are in the “advanced” stages of a potential deal that would merge the networking equipment makers, Finnish-based Nokia revealed in a statement. Any such deal would create a giant rival to industry leader Ericsson in Sweden, Huawei in China, and (in the router business), Cisco.

No terms of a proposed union have been made public. The combined company would be worth around $40 billion. In its statement, Nokia indicated that the deal “would take the form of a public exchange o�er by Nokia for Alcatel-Lucent.” But the statement added that “there can be no certainty at this stage that these discussions will result in any agreement or transaction.”

One possible roadblock could come from the French government where Alcatel-Lucent is based.

“The government will be very vigilant regarding the possible consequences on employment and activity at the French sites of Alcatel-Lucent, notably in research and development, as well as the e�ects on the entire telecoms sector in France, “ the Wall Street Journal reports the French economy ministry as having said.

Once the highest �yer in mobile phones, Nokia’s phone business came crashing to earth in recent years, losing out to Apple (iPhone), Android as well as cheaper Asian rivals. Nokia completed the sale of its handset business to Microsoft last year.

Today Nokia competes in network infrastructure software, hardware and services, maps, and advanced technology development and licensing.

Alcatel-Lucent has had its own troubles since Alcatel and U.S.-based Lucent merged in 2006.

Aditya Awasthi, director of client services at the LexInnova Technologies patent litigation and technology consulting �rm, believes a Nokia-Alcatel-Lucent merger makes a lot of sense from an intellectual property perspective. “I see a lot of synergy between these two patent portfolios,” with minimal overlap, he says. Nokia's patents mainly cover technology that forges communication between cellphones and cellular towers; Alcatel-Lucent’s portfolio is concentrated on “back-haul” technologies.

Despite the rough sledding for both companies, Nokia and Alcatel-Lucent have had some reason to cheer lately. Alcatel-Lucent’s shares have quadrupled in the last two years, while Nokia’s have tripled.

In the aftermath of merger talks being made public, Nokia (NOK) shares were down 4.46% in early trading Tuesday; Alcatel-Lucent’s (ALU) was up 8.85%.

-(Photo: SEPPO SIRKKA, EPA)

Edward C. Baig, USA TODAY

–(75)–

Featured: Aditya Awasthi (Director - Client Services)

Story By: Edward C. Baig

April 14, 2015, 11:30 A.M. ETBy Tiernan Ray

Nokia Slips: An Alcatel Buy Makes Sense, What are the Synergies? Asks Street

The Street today is pondering the early-morning announcement by Nokia (NOK) that it is in talks with equipment competitor Alcatel-Lucent (ALU) to purchase the latter in a stock swap, in response to speculation yesterday by Bloomberg.

Nokia shares are down 36 cents, or 4%, at $7.95, while Alcatel is up 39 cents, almost 9%, at $4.74.

Said Nokia,In relation to recent media speculation Nokia and Alcatel-Lucent confirm that they are in advanced discussions with respect to a potential full combination, which would take the form of a public exchange offer by Nokia for Alcatel-Lucent. There can be no certainty at this stage that these discussions will result in any agreement or transaction.

Nokia made no mention of the other bit of speculation, which had boosted its shares yesterday, that it was interested in selling its “HERE” mapping business.

One factor to consider is the substantial patent holdings of the two. In that regard, patent consultants LexInnova this morning sent Tech Trader Daily their graphical rendering of the respective patent holdings of Nokia and of Alcatel.

LexInnova models Nokia and Alcatel's Intellectula peroperty assets, April 2015.

The firm opines, “This merger may open up interesting opportunities for both these companies and pose a very potent threat to the Ericsson-Huawei combination.”

Tech Trader DailyNews, analysis, and actionable investing ideas.

Contd.–(76)–

Featured: LexInnova Research Team

April 14, 2015, 11:30 A.M. ETBy Tiernan Ray

Wells Fargo’s Maynard Um, who has a Market Perform rating on Nokia, writes that a deal would be dilutive to Nokia’s margins:

A 20% premium for ALU to when the talks were first reported would result in a share price of $4.64 or a market cap of $12.9bn. Text from the press release indicate that discussions ”would take the form of a public exchange offer by Nokia” which, to us, suggests the company would issue shares. Based on that value and our initial math, we estimate the deal would be dilutive to margins and to EPS by €0.02 without any synergies and accretive by €0.03 assuming wireless synergies. We believe the integration of ALU as a whole would be more complex and with less overall natural synergies versus the purchase of its wireless assets. With a changing industry landscape (particular-ly at its largest competitor), we believed Nokia would have to make changes to its strategy. While this would change the landscape for Nokia, the deal still sets eyes on core legacy businesses. We expect there is likely to be more pres-sure on Nokia to sell/spin its business segments if it acquires ALU (HERE, IP, and Infrastructure).

Berenberg analysts Jean Beaubois and Adnaan Ahmed write that there’s reason for Nokia to want Alcatel as the industry heads toward 5G networking:

Why now? It has to happen now as 1) Alcatel CEO is fully aware that next year its wireless business might go back in the red as its two largest markets; China and the US will go backward 2) both companies will start to work on their 5G platforms soon and they don’t want to end up having to support both and reduce the potential cost synergies 3) 5G is much more wireless-wireline integrated and thus Nokia needs Alcatel’s IP Tech to offer a better integrated solution.

But the duo offer that the deal may or may not have “synergies” for Nokia:

For this deal to be value accretive to Nokia, Adnaan believes the deal will need to have synergies of ~E1.4b assuming €1b restructuring charges and 2-3 years for the combo to be steady state. he assigns an EV/EBIT of ~10x to the incremental op profit that the combined entity could generate and have assumed Alcatel’s current stock price/mkt cap/EV.

Risks, they write, include pension discussions:

I don’t see the French gov blocking the deal; German/French tie ups are welcome and Alcatel has only a few thousand employees left in France anyway. Also Macron (French finance minister) is quite open minded. I think the Chinese regulator might force them to dispose of Alcatel Shanghai Bell. If they don’t that would be a positive surprise. I think the pension discussion might be the most difficult. I don’t see the trustees blocking the deal (they rather be on Nokia’s balance sheet than on Alcatel’s) but its valuation will determine the price Nokia is willing to pay for Alcatel equity.Credit Suisse’s Achal Sultania, who has Outperform ratings on both Nokia and Alcatel, issued a note late yesterday, before Nokia’s statement, based on the Bloomberg speculation that Nokia might want just the wireless assets, not the whole of Alcatel.

He sees good reason for Nokia to want those wireless assets.

Acquisition of ALU’s Wireless business may make strategic sense for NOK in our view. We believe that such a potential deal would allow Nokia to significantly improve its presence in the US with AT&T and Verizon (where Ericsson and ALU are key suppliers), with Nokia’s current customers being T-Mobile and more recently Sprint (starting from mid-2014). In addition, it may also propel Nokia from distant #3 player in Wireless RAN globally (at ~15% share) to #2 player behind

Ericsson, which enjoys ~35% share (followed by Huawei at 20-25% share, ALU and ZTE at ~10% each). Ending 2014, Nokia already had gross/net cash of Eu7.7bn/Eu5.0bn with another Eu750mn likely to come from converts issued in 2011 (likely conversion later this year). In addition, we believe that Nokia’s Maps business is worth around Eu2.4bn (on 2.0x EV/sales) if that asset were to be divested.

Sultania offers his back-of-the envelope on what Nokia should pay just for the wireless assets:

How much should NOK pay for ALU’s Wireless? We think Eu2bn to Eu2.5bn. For 2016, we assume Nokia Networks’ revenues at Eu12.0bn with 11.5% OMs, and we value Networks at 1.2x EV/sales implying Eu14.4bn in our SOTP analy-sis (Figure 1). ALU’s Wireless had sales of Eu4.7bn in 2014 (we estimate with 4% OM loss), and we assume Eu4.8bn/Eu4.5bn of sales for 2015/2016 with 0%/1% OM profits (driven by ongoing restructuring efforts). Assuming this deal were to happen, this would imply Nokia Networks + ALU’s Wireless entity would deliver sales of Eu16.4bn in 2016 with 9% OMs. However, we would argue that a scenar-io exists that NOK can drive 5% OMs in ALU’s Wireless given synergies around R&D. This would allow combined entity to do sales of Eu16.5bn with 10% OMs, which at 1.0x EV/sales would imply valuation of Eu16.5bn (an increase of Eu2.1bn vs. our existing scenario, Figure 2). In addition, we also believe that Nokia may have to spend Eu250mn on cash restructuring and Eu500mn on swap out of some of ALU’s installed base due to differing technology stand-ards. As such, we believe that Nokia should be willing to pay in the range of Eu2bn to Eu2.5bn for ALU’s Wireless assets (implying 0.45x to 0.55x EV/sales for 2016).

Contd. from page 1

–(77)–

Story By: Tiernan Ray

Featured: LexInnova Research Team

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

BY J IM NASHFOR INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Sixteen months after Googlebought Nest Labs, the home-auto-mation �rm has the industry won-deringwhere it’s goingnext.With $3.2 billion of acquisition

money in the bank, it could try torule the home Internet of Things,butwill it?The company denies any plans to

turn its devices into smart hubsthat manage other smart-homeproducts and says that it won’t selldatagathered inowners’ homes.What Nest does matters. Among

the scores of companies in thesmall but growing market forsmart-home products, it hasamongthehighest visibility.Many in the industry still marvel

at the price, $3.2 billion, that Goo-gleGOOGL paid forNest, anamount solarge that it intensi�ed talk of anewtechbubble.Then there’s the postmodern de-

sign of Nest’s programmable andWi-Fi-enabled Learning Thermo-stat,whichhasearned ite�usive in-dustryandmediapraise.Learning Thermostats have even

become stops on house tours forparty guests. Homeowners pro-gram the device by adjusting it astheywould any thermostat. Cleveralgorithms pick up on those pat-ternsandsoonreplicate them.The thermostat can be operated

remotelyvia smartphone.It also can communicate with

Nest’s other wireless devices, in-cluding the Protect smoke and car-bon-monoxidedetectorandthere-cently acquired Dropcam Webcamera.Former Apple engineers Tony

Fadell — lead inventor of the iPod— and Matt Rogers started Nest in2010 to do for thermostats whatApple had done for personal elec-tronics: Make them iconic andmoreuseful.In 2013, Gigaom — a tech news

website that has gone out of busi-ness—estimatedthatNestwassell-ing 40,000 to 50,000 thermostatspermonth.In January 2014,Morgan Stanley

estimated that Nest was selling100,000 per month, according totheWallStreet Journal.The Learning Thermostat retails

for$249.Along the way, Nest has devel-

oped a radically updated smokealarm — the $99 Protector — andlast June paid $555 million forDropcam,maker of a $199webcamof thesamename.Reports have surfaced that Nest

willget intoaudio systemsnext.A help-wanted posting on Nest’s

website seeks a “headof audio” en-gineer to “lead the development ofNest audio across hardware andsoftware,presentand future.”The company declines to say

much. Spokeswoman Kate Brinkstold IBD that Nest’s sta�s grow-ing rapidly, up to 800 employeesfrom 300 employees when GoogleboughtNest in January2014.

Focus: Great ProductsAsked if Nest is expected to ever

makeasigni�cant impactonGoog-le’s revenue, she declined to com-ment.“Nest is focusedonbuildinggreat

products,” Maxime Veron, thecompany’sheadofproductmarket-ing, told IBD via email. “A second-ary focus is onbuilding aplatform”for itsproductsandpartners.Nest’s Fadell is on the record as

saying that Nest will not use thedata that its devicesgatheras a rev-enue stream, a practice that hashelped tomake Google theworld’sfourth-biggest company bymarketcap.Nor,apparently,does thecom-pany want to control whole ma-chine-to-machine networks or be

the central point of contact amongdevices, according to aNest execu-tive speakingonbackground.But some observers are skeptical

that Google bought Nest for its ap-pliance revenuealone.

“Google (could be) getting lots ofinformation about the user” fromNest’s home-automation productsand other vendors’ products thatwork with Nest hardware, saidNasir Ali, head of marketing forpatent-consulting �rm LexInnova.

Ali said ananalysis of Nest’s re-cent patent �lings indicates thatthe company is focused on ways tocoordinate and communicate in for-mation �ying around wireless net-works of thermostats, locks, fans,lights and more.

He said that about 20% of Nest’spatent �lings in 2013 to 2014 werefor wired networking topologymanagement, which involves hownetworked connections are orga-nized. But in 2014 alone, patents onthis topic amounted to almost athird of Nest �lings.

A similar trend is seen with Nestpatent �lings involving wired com-munications protocols, which are

rules for how data is transmittedand received in networks, said Ali.

About 16% of its 2013-2014 �lingsinvolved these protocols, but thatpercentage was 28% in 2014 alone.

Filings for infrastructure controlsystems, which manage networkfunctions, were high as well.

In 2013-2014, 37% of patent �lingsinvolved these systems. Alisaid that in 2014 alone, they ac-counted for 28%.It’s a bit of a stretch to take the

patent data and conclude thatNestaims to be the smart-home hub,says Chun Liew, founder of Smart-HomeDB, an industry publisher inShanghai.“I do not expect them to create a

dedicated hub” as home-networkcompaniesWink andSmartThingshave, Liewsaid.The Learning Thermostat and

Protect can act more hub-like, hesaid, but “Nest probably won’tpush in thatdirection.”“I believe Nest will continue re-

leasing new products and acquir-ing companies in other categoriestoexpand (its footprint)” inhomes,Liewsaid.So while he doesn’t see Nest

being an all-controlling hub, hedoes see it adding to its productportfolio. Some in the industry arealready playing down Nest’s im-pacton thesmart-homemarket.Nest is a player but not “a game

changer,” said Dave Bussen, direc-tor of sales and business develop-ment for high-end home-automa-tion integrator Home Tech Ex-perts.Nest is one of dozens of vendors

whose products Home Tech Ex-pertsconnects.Bussen called Nest’s prominence

“a positive for the industry” in that“now, people knowwhat (automa-tion) integration and managementcando for them.”

For Google’s Nest, Future Still Up In AirAudio May Be Its Next Target

Some say the maker of‘learning’ thermostats aimsto be smart-home hub

Nest’sLearningThermostattracksheatingandcoolingpatterns intoitsmemorytoadjust itselfautomatically.

Tony Fadell, who had made a name for himself as the lead inventor ofthe Apple iPod, co-founded Nest, which Google bought for $3.2 billion.

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY- INTERNET & TECHNOLOGY MONDAY, APRIL 13, 2015 A 5

–(78)–

Featured: Nasir Ali (Manager - Litigation Solution)

Story By: Jim Nash

on March 30 2015 3:25 PM EDTBy Salvador Rodriguez

Why Xiaomi Is Not Coming To America Anytime Soon: It Only Has 2 US PatentsXiaomi, a top Chinese phone maker that is currently one of the tech world’s most buzzworthy companies, is cautiously eyeing the U.S. market. But any plans it may have to bring products such as the Mi 4 or Mi Note stateside could be derailed by its weak portfolio of intellectual property. In hyperlitigious Silicon Valley, where lawyers can be as important to a product’s success as engineers, Xiaomi’s lack of patent protection for its smartphones means it would be bringing a knife to a gunfight.

Xiaomi has just two patents to its name in the U.S., according to SmartUp, a legal startup that specializes in helping clients connect with lawyers. If Xiaomi ever wants to sell a smartphone in America, it will have to grow that number significantly.

“The smartphone market is a highly, highly litigious market. I mean, it’s so lucrative that every tech company is suing every other company,” Aditya Awasthi, director of client services at patent and litigation consulting firm LexInnova, said. If Xiaomi “were to enter this market, they’d be sued left and right by almost everyone - Apple, Samsung, Ericsson, Nokia - and all these guys will just have a field day.”

A strong patent portfolio protects a company in two ways. In the event it’s sued by a competitor, it can produce a patent to show there’s more than one way to build a certain product or function. It can also wield patents as a deterrent by threatening retaliatory action against any rival that hauls it into court.

Behind The IP CurveBeijing-based Xiaomi has become one of the most hyped tech startups after drawing a valuation of $45 billion and becoming a top-five smartphone vendor in 2014, due to its passionate fan base and low-cost devices. But what it has in buzz it lacks in patents. Lenovo, Huawei and ZTE -- three other Chinese phone makers who already sell devices in the U.S. -- each have more than 900 patents in their U.S. portfolios, according to SmartUp.

To be clear, intellectual property (IP) is not the only reason for Xiaomi’s slow move to the U.S. Both the company and several experts point out that it has to build its brand

border,” Bijal V. Vakil, a lawyer who specializes in high-tech law and is the managing partner of White & Case’s Silicon Valley office, said. “That’s a very significant bargaining chip. You don’t have those same type of intellectual property enforcement systems in other places in the world.”

Xiaomi's Patent OptionsFortunately for Xiaomi, there are a few options at its disposal. If the company is serious about waiting and building its brand before launching, Xiaomi can go the traditional route and apply for patents -- already, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has published more than 65 Xiaomi patent applications, which is the step before the office grants a patent. This would be a lengthy process, however, that would likely delay Xiaomi’s U.S. entrance by years.

A faster option would be for Xiaomi to either purchase or license a third-party patent portfolio. There are numerous patent holding companies with which it could work, but an interesting option would be Nokia. When the Finnish company sold its phone business to Microsoft in 2013, one thing it kept was its enormous patent portfolio. If Xiaomi were to acquire that portfolio, it would solve its dilemma. “Nokia is out of that market. Nokia is no longer building cell phones,” Awasthi of LexInnova said. “Nokia would be more than happy to offload their patents to Xiaomi.”

Another interesting option would tie back to Xiaomi’s more extensive Chinese portfolio. As China gets more serious about patent law, foreign companies have been working to expand their portfolios there. Xiaomi could grant one of these players license to its Chinese patents in exchange for the same with the company’s American portfolio, Yuri Eliezer, one of the founders of SmartUp, said.

“China is becoming a country in which intellectual property gets taken more and more seriously every year,” Eliezer said. If Xiaomi “has established a good portfolio in China, they could leverage that to bargain for licenses in the U.S.”

Whatever Xiaomi decides to do, increasing its patent portfolio is crucial if it ever wants to make a splash in the U.S.

and secure distribution partnerships before it can successfully compete against the likes of Apple and Samsung for American consumers. “You can build a sexy phone, but if no one knows who you are or if no carrier promotes your product, it's hard to gain traction in a nearly saturated market,” Maribel Lopez, founder of San Francisco market research and consulting company Lopez Research LLC, said.

But Xiaomi’s puny patent portfolio does play a major factor. Unlike some of its competitors that have been around for decades, Xiaomi is just five years old, so it’s no surprise it has a much smaller portfolio. This has already caused headaches for the company in other parts of the world. In India, Xiaomi saw its sales briefly disrupted when it was hit with a lawsuit by Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson.

If Xiaomi were to launch in the U.S. before significantly bolstering its intellectual property, it would be a surprise if the Chinese startup weren’t hit with numerous lawsuits. Since the smartphone market broke out in 2007, Apple, Samsung, Microsoft and the rest of the tech industry have shown they have no qualms about using the American court system as a way to stifle competition. Apple and Samsung, for example, have been locked in patent infringement litigation since 2012 while Taiwanese HTC was forced to sign licensing agreements with both Apple and Nokia after being sued by both companies for patent infringement.

“In the U.S., if you prevail in a patent case against a competitor, typically the patent holder will seek an injunction to block the entry of those phones from coming in at the

With just two patents granted in the U.S., Xiaomi will have to build out its portfolio if it ever wants to launch in America. Above, Lei Jun, Xiaomi founder and CEO, speaks at a company ceremony last year. Reuters/Jason Lee

–(79)–

Featured: Aditya Awasthi (Director - Client Services)

Story By: Salvador Rodriguez

Patent Filings Reveal a Growing Interest in IoT

Posted 04-01-2015

A new study on intellectual property related to the Internet of things (IoT) �nds that a majority of patenting activity occurred in areas related to resource management in a wireless network. But patent distribution in this domain is very fragmented, according to the study, with the top patent �ler, LG, holding just 5% of total patents. Qualcomm is the leader in high patent portfolio quality and good patent �ling activity, according to the report.

Interdigital and ETRI hold substantial patents in their portfolios, as well. “With a very fragmented patent holding pattern and a high patent �ling activity, we expect to see signi�cant patent licensing activity in this technology domain,” particularly in the wireless communication protocol and device control systems segments, the report states. The IoT is expected to be an “all-pervasive technology” in the next 10 years.

The United States has the most patent �lings, followed closely by Japan, Korea and China, the report states. The study was conducted by patent litigation consulting and e-discovery �rm LexInnova, which has a proprietary patents analytic tool called LexScore.

By Karen A. Frenkel

–(80)–

Featured (Report): IoT Report January 4, 2015

Story By: Karen A. Frenkel

LexInnovaAbout Us:LexInnova technologies LLC draws on a combination of technical and litigation expertise to solve the challenges that arise at the intersection of technology and the law.

Our Credentials:ISO 27001:2013 Certification designation validates LexInnova’s commitment to internationally recognized security standardsISO 9001:2008 Certification designation validates LexInnova’s commitment to internationally recognized quality management

Disclaimer:LexInnova has prepared this research independently based on reliable public data and reviewed the results based on its proprietary methodology, with the belief that it is fair and not misleading. The information and analysis in this report is technical in nature, and shall not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion of LexInnova.

For more information, Please contact us at [email protected].

USA (Cupertino) l USA (Houston) l USA (Austin) l Japan (Tokyo)

© 2016 LexInnova. All Rights Reserved www.lex-innova.com